IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26992 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2025 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Mohammad Kalu @ Mohammad Firoj S/o Mohammad Masu R/o Mahalla - Mehadi Hasan Chowk, P.S. - Brahmpura, Distt. - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 175 of 2025 lodged on 10.07.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) & 334 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Muzaffarpur. 3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against unknown persons with allegation that they entered in a temple and looted several articles from the temple like, brass bell of hanumanji temple, brass bell in front of mataji temple, brass chatri inside the santoshi mata temple and also some articles from the store room. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26992 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has figured in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. He further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending against him. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner's name has surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and the petitioner was also identified in the CCTV footage. 6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T