Anurag Kumar @ RustamversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.569 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2025 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Anurag Kumar @ Rustam S/o Awadesh Paswan Resident of Village-
                 Aachhechak, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna

                                                                                    ... ... Appellant/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Rajesh Kumar S/o Krishna Prasad R/o vill - Dhamaul, P.s.- Parsa Bazar,
                 Distt.- Patna

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Ayushi Gupta
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Binay Krishna
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-06-2026                     1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

                   learned Special P.P. for the State.

                                   2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

                   Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

                   Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST

                   Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide

                   order dated 13.01.2026 in A.B.P. No. 4326 of 2025 passed by

                   the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Patna

                   in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No.388 of 2025, registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 309(6) of the

                   Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 27 of the Arms Act.

                                   3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.569 of 2026(3) dt.16-06-2026
                                             2/3




          appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

          alleges that on 31.05.2025 he receive a call from Alamganj P.S.

          informing that two injured persons were found, on seeing the

          photo of the injured, the informant identified his elder brother

          Hariom lying dead and other was his friend Ravi, lying in an

          injured condition, further Ravi disclosed that both of them were

          roaming for work and met Vishal, who called two unknown

          accused, but an altercation took place between Vishal and the

          two unknown accused persons and the unknown accused fired

          killing Hariom and injuring him.

                           4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case during

          the course of investigation based on confessional statement of

          Vishal. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as

          alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that Ravi did not disclose

          the name of the two unknown accused who were called by

          Vishal, when he disclosed about the occurrence to the informant,

          as such appellant is not named in the FIR.

                           5. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the

          appeal and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands

          admitted is that own brother of the appellant Hariom died on

          account of firing and Ravi was injured. It is further submitted
           Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.569 of 2026(3) dt.16-06-2026
                                                        3/3




                     that though Ravi did not disclose the name of the two unknown

                     accused who were called by Vishal but then from tenor of

                     allegation, it would manifest that even Ravi was not knowing

                     the accused persons who were called by Vishal. It is also

                     submitted that it is specifically alleged that an altercation took

                     place in between two unknown accused and Vishal which led to

                     firing in which Hariom died and Ravi was injured. It is further

                     submitted that name of the appellant transpired in the

                     confessional statement of Vishal and it was Vishal, who had

                     called the unknown accused. It is also submitted that one person

                     died and other was in an injured condition and the investigation

                     of the case is continuing as such it is not a fit case for grant of

                     anticipatory bail.

                                      6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties

                     and also taking into submissions made by the learned Special

                     P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of

                     anticipatory bail to the appellant.

                                      7. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.



                                                       (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U      T