Pappu Sharma @ Amitabh Ranjan @ Amitav Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32557 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2021 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad

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

Pappu Sharma @ Amitabh Ranjan @ Amitav Ranjan S/o Late Surendra Sharma R/o Village- Sendhwan, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madan Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶8

5 19-09-2025

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶10

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

¶12

Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 12/2021, registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

¶13

The accused/petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 06.08.2024.

¶14

As per FIR, five named co-accused persons opened fire upon the wife of the informant, leading her death.

¶15

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the informant claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence and he named five named accused persons as to involve in the occurrence of murder. It is submitted that the specific allegation of causing fatal firing is available against co-

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32557 of 2025(5) dt.19-09-2025 2/3

¶17

accused, namely, Ramnath Sharma and Gopal Sharma. It is pointed out that petitioner was not even named but during course of investigation out of police atrocities as the petitioner made complaint against police officials of police station accepting bribe, the present false allegation was raised against him. It is submitted that during investigation nothing transpired incriminating against petitioner but as petitioner found involved in 11 more criminal cases, prior to the occurrence, where he is on bail, out of suspicion arising out of said criminal antecedents, the petitioner falsely implicated with present case also due to aforesaid discussed police atrocities. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, for which chargesheet has been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶18

Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid factual submissions and by

¶20

taking note of fact as petitioner being accused was not named by the informant while lodging FIR, being an eye-witness of the occurrence, coupled with the fact that investigation of this case is already completed, where petitioner remains in custody since 06.08.2024, accordingly, petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32557 of 2025(5) dt.19-09-2025 3/3

¶22

12/2021, 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 1^st Class, Jehanabad/concerned Court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C./Section 480(3) of BNSS.

¶23

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶24

veena/-

¶25

U T

Pappu Sharma @ Amitabh Ranjan @ Amitav Ranjan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Sharma @ Amitabh Ranjan @ Amitav Ranjan 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

Israt Parween @ Israt Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Myank Pandey @ Mayank Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Punj Kumar Singh Vs The Union of India through the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Harendra Ray Vs The State of Bihar