Dismissed¶¶24

Ramesh Kumar Ram v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 May 2026CR. MISC./30645/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CRL. MISC. No.30645 of 2026, decided 07-05-2026, Alok Kumar Sinha, J. Anticipatory bail application rejected as not maintainable because process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had already been initiated against the petitioner (Rajepur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2022, Section 392 IPC — alleged looting of Rs. 29,587/- from fuel-pump nozzle men by four unknown motorcyclists; District East Champaran). Keywords: anticipatory bail; Section 82 Cr.P.C.; proclamation process; not maintainable; S. 392 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Because the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against the petitioner, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is rejected. ¶¶24

Ramesh Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30645 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2022 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Ramesh Kumar Ram S/o- Sukhlal Ramn Resident of Village - Shampur, P.S. - Shyampur Bathan, District - Sheohar

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhurendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 07-05-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.

¶15

As per the F.I.R., the informant, being the Manager of Baba Baidyanath Fuel Center, Machhuanha, received information that four unknown miscreants riding on two motorcycles arrived at the fuel pump and looted a sum of Rs. 29,587/- from the nozzle men, namely, Santosh Kumar and Vinod Kumar.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He is a person of clean antecedent. Nothing incriminating has been

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30645 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/2

¶18

recovered from his possession.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has

¶20

opposed the prayer for bail.

¶21

From the reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny

¶23

this fact.

¶24

Under such circumstance, this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and hence, it is rejected.

¶25

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶26

kundan/-

Ramesh Kumar Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budhan Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Pinki Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sujeet Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Rambalak Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Nagendra Sah @ Nagendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar