Ranjit Singh Vs The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Kumari Anjali, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari, APP For the Informant : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 26-10-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶14

APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 780 of 2023, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶16

The prosecution case, in short, is that, some unknown persons fired upon the son of the informant due to which he sustained fire arm injuries and also succumbed to his injuries.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44777 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 2/3

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case due to earlier dispute. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that son of the informant was murdered by some unknown miscreants. The petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2023 and has got no criminal antecedent.

¶19

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP for the State further submits that on perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner is named accused in the FIR and there is direct allegation against the petitioner. The witnesses examined during the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide para-11, 12, 29, 30 and 31 of the case diary have corroborated the version of FIR. Hence the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶20

Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44777 of 2024(4) dt.26-10-2024 3/3

¶22

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

The prayer is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to

¶24

expedite the Trial expeditiously. However, if the Trial is not concluded within a period six months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

¶25

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶26

Rajorshi/-

¶27

U T

Ranjit Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh 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

Gunsagar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Mukund Deo Sah @ Mukund Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Arun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramanuj Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Bihar