Sanjit Kumar @ Randhir Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1034 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2024 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sanjit Kumar @ Randhir Mahto S/O Sitaram Singh @ Sitaram Mahto R/O Anaith, Ward no.- 43, P.S.- Ara Nawada, Dist.- Bhojpur, Permanent R/O Vill.- Bankat, P.S.- Jagdishpur, Dist.- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Anand, APP For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP For the informant :

Mr. Madhu Prasoon, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-01-2025 Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Ara Nawada P.S. Case No.153 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

As per the F.I.R., the petitioner is the assailant of the deceased.

4.

Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the inquest panchnama was made on the date of occurrence in the night but the F.I.R. has been registered on the next date at about 2:30 P.M. by the wife of the deceased. He further submits that the persons who have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1034 of 2025(2) dt.18-01-2025 2/2 signed the inquest report are also the witnesses and nothing prevented them from lodging the F.I.R. on the date of occurrence. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case because of land dispute.

5.

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the informant, who is the wife of the deceased, was in shock and therefore, she did not register the F.I.R. on the date of occurrence.

6.

The arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage. These arguments can be raised in the trial by the defence.

7.

Considering the fact that this is a case of murder in which the petitioner is the assailant of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. 8.

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T