IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49812 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2026 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Harsh Kumar S/O Nagendra Pandey R/O Village- Dhapar, Ward no.4, Bagahi, Ramnagar, Distt.- Runnisaidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Murari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 29-07-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 305 of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that in his absence in the night on 08.03.2026 unknown thieves committed theft of articles as detailed in the FIR, after entering his house and his neighbour showed the face of two thieves captured in her CCTV. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation, it is also submitted that if the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49812 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/2 privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records that the accused were identified by the witnesses based on the CCTV footage as petitioner and others and for proper identification TIP is required, it is also submitted that the petitioner in the anticipatory bail application has not even remotely suggested what he does for a living. 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