IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44481 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2015 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Munni Khatoon S/o Mohd Aslam resident of village - motipur, p.s- Rosera, district - samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raja Ram Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 23-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 224, 225, 332, 333, 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that house of Md. Mister Mian was raided based on a complaint of Shahjahan Khan, on 10.08.2015 at 8:00 A.M. Md. Mister was apprehended but a mob of 30-40 villagers gathered and assaulted the police personnel and fired and thus facilitated the escape of Mister Mian from police custody, further the mob tried to santch arms of policemen and assaulted causing injury to policemen and a miscreant snatched wrist watch of ASI Chandra Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44481 of 2026(2) dt.23-07-2026 2/2 Mohan. 4. At this stage, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the case is of the year 2015, the petitioner had earlier moved before the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing A.B.P. No. 202 of 2025 which was dismissed by an order dated 06.08.2025, but then petitioner did not move before this Court seeking anticipatory bail nor surrendered and again filed the anticipatory bail application before the learned District Court i.e. A.B.P. No. 1016 of 2026 which came to be rejected by an order dated 21.05.2026 and is impugned in the instant anticipatory bail application, it is also submitted that process under Section 84 BNSS has been issued. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submissions of the learned A.P.P. for the State. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. vikram/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T