IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28778 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2025 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Anil Choudhary, Son of Banshi Choudhary, Resident of Village- Mauna Tola, PS- Nokha, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 280 of 2025, registered for the alleged offences under Section 317(5) of BNS. 3. As per prosecution case, police received information about the petitioner and his sons keeping stolen inverter battery and other electronic articles in their house. A raid was conducted and co-accused Pintu Kumar was apprehended and two persons fled away from the spot and they were identified by mahal chaukidar as this petitioner and co- accused Ravi Ranjan Kumar. On search of the house, from the basement, recovery of two batteries, one led TV, two assembled Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28778 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026 2/3 stabilizers, one water motor, one amplifier, one LED TV, one blower, flexible wire, one drill machine, one hammer, two cutter machines, one drill machine, blades, one room heater and scissors, were made. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was not caught from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the person/possession of the petitioner. The seized articles do not belong to him. The house from where recovery has been made is a joint house and is in possession of the petitioner and his two sons and the petitioner has no concern with the affairs of his sons. The co- accused Ravi Ranjan Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.7089 of 2026. The petitioner is having antecedent of one case of different nature. 5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent and recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner. The learned APP further submits that in the order granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused Ravi Ranjan Kumar, it has been submitted on behalf Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28778 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026 3/3 of co-accused Ravi Ranjan Kumar that he was not knowing about the fact that the battery kept in the house was a stolen one. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that recovery of different articles have been made from the house of the petitioner, who is having a criminal antecedent, I do not find it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. V.K.Pandey/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T