Ankit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1562 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1222 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ankit Kumar, S/o- Santosh Sahani @ Santosh Sahni RO Village- Pipariya PSTurkaulia District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-02-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 323, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, Section 302 I.P.C. was also added.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being son of Santosh Sahani, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that no doubt, the injured died on account of assault, but then, he died on account of assault on head as it has come in the post mortem report. It is next submitted that the FIR was also instituted after three days of the occurrence, as such, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1562 of 2025(2) dt.28-02-2025 2/2 petitioner, being son of Santosh Sahni, also came to be implicated in order to coerce Santosh into submission with an allegation that he also assaulted the injured by an iron rod on chest and back. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting, then the cause of death was not on account of assault made by this petitioner, but on account of assault made by Santosh and Manish by farsa on head of the deceased. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and submits that in the event, if bail is granted to the petitioner he may abscond as charges till date has not been framed, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to renew his prayer after framing of charge.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T