CR. MISC./58463/2026 of Deepak Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

19-08-2026 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 Areraj P.S. Case No. 297 of 2025, for allegedly having committed an offence under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2), 303(2), 61(2), 112(2), 3(5) 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 while he was working in the police station, he received information that one thief has been caught by public near SBI ATM at Areraj Sub-division gate on Motihari road. To verify the authenticity of the said information, the informant along with police party reached near the ATM and found that one person has been caught by the people present there. After taking the person in his custody, the informant asked for his name, which was disclosed as Amindra Kumar. From search of the pocket of the apprehended person, 6 ATM cards/debit cards of S.B.I. in different names were found. Along with the said cards, one motorcycle in the name of one Indu Devi and mobile phone was also found from the possession of the apprehended person. It was informed by one Rani Kumari, who was present there that the apprehended person Amindra Kumar told her that he will withdraw the money from her account through ATM card and will give it to her, however he changed the ATM card of the said Rani Kumari and tried to flee away. Upon hulla, local people came there and caught hold of him. On the disclosure made by the said apprehended persons namely, Amindra Kumar, the name of the petitioner transpired in the present case, to be a accomplice of the said Amindra Kumar.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. She submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, due to village politics. She submits that the name of the petitioner transpired in the present case only on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-accused Amindra Kumar, who was apprehended at the place of occurrence. The petitioner has got no knowledge about the occurrence in question and he was not even present at the place of occurrence, therefore there is no question of any involvement of the petitioner in the said occurrence. She further submits that the petitioner is an accused in two other cases of similar nature and in both the cases, he is on bail, although it has not been written in the anticipatory bail petition.

5. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner along with the apprehend person was present at the place of occurrence and when the people caught hold of the said person, the petitioner absconded from there. He is an accused in two other cases, therefore he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears that co-accused Amindra Kumar was caught red-handed at the place of occurrence by the people present there, for exchanging the ATM card and from his possession 6 ATM cards/debit cards of different persons was recovered. Upon interrogation, he disclosed the name of the petitioner to be the person, who fled away from the place of occurrence on a red-colour motorcycle. From the documents available on record and from the impuged order passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Champaran at Motihari, it would transpire that the petitioner was an accomplice of the Amindra Kumar, who was apprehended at the place of occurrence itself. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

shital/- (Ritesh Kumar, J) U T