[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Amod Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31879 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2017 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Amod Rai S/O Poshan Rai R/O Village- Adalpur, P.S- Hajipur Sadar,
District- Vaishali.
2. Mithlesh Kumar Aryan @ Mithilesh Kumar Arya S/O Amod Rai R/O
Village- Adalpur, P.S- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hemant Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 23-07-2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable in connection with
Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.462 of 2017 under Sections 147,
148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 504, 506, 324, 307, 353, 188, 333, 427,
379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of
the Arms Act read with Sections 4 and 40(8) of the Bihar Minor
Mineral Concession Rule, 1972.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
though it is a case of the year 2017, but he has no knowledge of
the pendency of the case. Therefore, he could not moved before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31879 of 2025(3) dt.23-07-2025
2/2
the Court.
4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail and the Principal District and Sessions Judge has
categorically acknowledged that it is a case of 2017 and from
the lower court record, it transpires that under section 82 of the
Cr.P.C., processes have already been issued against the
petitioners and petitioners have been declared proclaimed
offender.
5. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court
finds that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.
As such, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioners, therefore the bail application of the petitioners is
hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Prakashmani/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link