Ranjit Sah Vs the State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 26-04-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶14

grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Patepur P.S. Case no.150 of 2021 registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, the six named accused persons including the petitioner herein are said to have come to the shop of the informant. It is stated that as a result of land dispute between the parties, the accused started to abuse the informant. On the informant resisting, Arvind Sah is said to have caught the informant by his neck and pushed him while Ranjit Sah (petitioner) and Bhupendra Rai assaulted with a sword and a khanti . Chandan Kumar threatened his nephew with

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4307 of 2024(4) dt.26-04-2024 2/3

¶17

a pistol.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is case and counter case between the parties and the case lodged by the informant’s side is at an earlier point of time. It was as an after thought and to set up a defence that the instant FIR (Annexure-1) has been registered. Learned counsel further submits that while the allegation against the petitioner is of having assaulted with a sword, the injury report does not support the prosecution case in so far as lacerated injury has been found. Co-accused Arvind Sah has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 6.6.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. no.70835 of 2021.

¶19

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner that he along with one Bhupendra Rai are said to have assaulted the informant with a sword and a khanti and corresponding injury has been found on the body of the informant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

¶21