IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36249 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2026 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Santosh Sharma @ Santosh Kumar S/o Balkishun Sharma R/o Village - Kothia Hareram, P.S. - Mehasi, Dist. - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 17-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 106 of 2026, for allegedly having committed an offence under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 339, 340(2), 111(2) of the B.N.S. 3. As per the prosecution case, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to the effect that he got a secret information that all the accused persons were running a business of selling and purchasing stolen motorcycles. The informant to verify the authenticity of the said information, reached the house of co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj and upon search of the house of the said co- accused, total 7 stolen motorcycles were recovered. When the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36249 of 2026(4) dt.17-08-2026 2/5 co-accused was asked to produce the documents, he produced 6 smart cards relating to 6 motorcycles. After investigation, the same were found to be created by H.H.D. Machine and all the smart cards were correct, however when the informant called on the mobile number, which was displayed during the checking of the smart card, the owner of the motorcycle told that his motorcycle is present in his house. Co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj informed the informant that all that motorcycles are stolen one and he named other co-accused persons, including the petitioner to be his accomplish in stealing and selling the motorcycle, by creating forged documents. Upon the information given by co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj, the informant proceeded to conduct raid at the house of co-accused Niraj Kumar, from where one motorcycle was recovered and thereafter from the house of the petitioner, two motorcycles were recovered, found parked in front of his house. On the information given by co-accused Niraj Kumar, a raid was also conducted in the house of one Satyandra Mahto, from where several articles were seized. Subsequent thereto, the house of co-accused Dipak Kumar was also raided, from where three motorcycles were recovered and accordingly the seizure list was prepared. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36249 of 2026(4) dt.17-08-2026 3/5 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He submits that the name of the petitioner transpired in the present case, only on the basis of the confessional statement made by co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj and on his disclosure, two motorcycles were recovered, parked in front of the house of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the said motorcycle, since he is a mechanic of motorcycle. The motorcycles were found parked in front of his house, however he was not aware about parking of the said motorcycles in front of his house. He further submits that the petitioner resides in a rented accommodation and therefore there is every probability that said motorcycles must have been parked by some other persons, who are also residing in the same house. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a mechanic of motorcycle, co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj came to his shop and there was a dispute in between the petitioner and co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj for payment relating to servicing of his motorcycle. He further submits that the raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner at 12:30 A.M., and the procedure prescribed under Section 185 of the B.N.S.S. was not followed by the informant, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36249 of 2026(4) dt.17-08-2026 4/5 while conducting raid. He submits that the petitioner is an accused in one another case bearing Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 145 of 2021 under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner would submit that on the confessional statement made by co- accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj, a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner and in front of the house of the petitioner, two motorcycles, which were stolen one were found parked. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the record as well as the material available in the case diary, it appears that the name of the petitioner transpired in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement given by co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj. On the said confessional statement, a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner and two motorcycles, parked in front of his house were recovered. The said motorcycles were stolen property. It further appears that co-accused Saheb Kumar @ Bikki Raj was granted regular bail by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further, witnesses during course of investigation have supported the case of the prosecution. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36249 of 2026(4) dt.17-08-2026 5/5 bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. shital/- (Ritesh Kumar, J) U T