IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40011 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2025 Thana- ANDHRATHARHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Shaukat @ Shaukat Hussain S/o Sardar Hussain R/o Village - Satghara, Ward No. - 5, P.S - Rajnagar, Dist. - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jaishankar Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 02-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Andhara Thari PS Case No. 110 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases of serious nature and the informant alleges that he received an information on 24-7-2025 at 2:25 pm that dacoity has been committed at the house of Raj Kumar, accordingly he reached the place of occurrence and saw that the house was vandalised and blood was found splattered on the varandah, further Rajesh (son of Raj Kumar) disclosed that 10-12 unknown accused had came and committed dacoity after Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40011 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 2/3 locking the family members in a room, further the informant traced the blood stain and found a dead body lying in the field of Raj Kumar, but neither the villager nor Rajesh could identify the dead body as the deceased was a person from outside the village. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation based on confessional statement of Jitender in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation as alleged in the FIR is serious, no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the case based on confessional statement of Jitender, but then petitioner has antecedent of five serious cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence. 6. Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40011 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 3/3 petitioner is rejected. Sumit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T