IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81393 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== JITENDRA KUMAR RAY @ RAJ @ JITENDRA KUMAR RAJ S/o- Birendra Ray R/v- Kashipur W.No-7, Ps- Town Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 13-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 of the I.P.C. and later on Sections 412 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code was also added. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that he along with Dipak on a motorcycle were going to deposit Rs.7,50,000/- in the bank when they were intercepted by two unknown accused who snatched Rs.7,50,000/- and fled with co-accused who was waiting for them on a motorcycle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the petitioner during the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81393 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026 2/2 course of investigation came to be implicated based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that no doubt, name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, but then, from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the apprehended accused was seen in the CCTV footage. It is also submitted that investigation of the case is continuing and petitioner has antecedent of one case and in the event, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected. vikash/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T