Anmol Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29728 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur

======================================================

Anmol Kumar S/O Pramod Kumar Rai @ pramod Rai R/O VillagePanchrukhi, Ward No 12, Via- Birauli, P.O.- Raghunathpur Bela, P.S.Karpoorigram, District- Samastipur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Dheeraj Kumar Dheeraj S/O Indradev Sharma R/O Village- Punas, Ward No 10, Via- Birauli, P.O.- Raghunathpur Bela, P.S.- Karpoorigram, DistrictSamastipur.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, Adv. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 24-06-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and as also counsel for the Informant.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Karpoorigram P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 dated 18.08.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section/s 308(2), 308(5), 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶15

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.06.2025, the informant's son Baibhav Kumar, a Class-10 student, was going to get his mobile phone repaired when the petitioner, Anmol Kumar, took possession of the phone on the pretext of

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29728 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 2/4

¶17

getting it repaired. It is alleged that the petitioner falsely represented that the shopkeeper was demanding Rs. 14,000/- for mobile documents and threatened police and ED action, thereby inducing the informant to pay the amount. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly blackmailed the informant and dishonestly obtained a total sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- through cash and Instagram chats.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the complaint case filed by the petitioner against the informant, which has been appended to the instant anticipatory bail petition as Annexure-P/2, submits that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was given to Dheeraj Kumar seven years ago and, on demand being made, the said amount was not returned by him. Consequently, the petitioner was filed the aforesaid complaint case. It is further submitted that, in order to evade his liability, the informant has instituted the present false case against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the instant case has been lodged after a delay of two months and six days and there is no explanation for such delay. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29728 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 3/4

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the informant, by referring to the chats allegedly exchanged with the informant's son, who, according to him, is a minor, submits that the informant's son was being pressurized by police personnel, in respect of which a complaint had already been lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. It is further submitted that only thereafter the petitioner instituted a complaint case for recovery of the amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, which, according to the petitioner, had been given to the informant seven years back.

¶21

Be that as it may, from the nature of the allegations, the dispute appears to be primarily related to a money transaction. Moreover, no explanation whatsoever has been brought on record for consideration by this Court regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, and even the FIR itself does not disclose any reason for such delay.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that there is unexplained delay of two months and six days in lodging the F.I.R. and the case has been lodged after a complaint case filed by the petitioner and, as also, the petitioner having no criminal antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29728 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 4/4

¶24

arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class cum Additional Munsif, Samastipur in connection with Karpoorigram P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following conditions:

¶25

(i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;

¶26

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

¶27

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.

¶28

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶29

rishi/-

¶30

U T

Anmol Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Tuntun Prasad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Nimmi Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Sanju Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Siddharth Shankar @ Siddhu @ Siddharth Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeev Ray Vs The State of Bihar