Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3368 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2017 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Paswan Son of Masudan Paswan Resident of Village- Sheonar, P.S.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey Ms.Kumari Pallavi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anish Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Barh Police Station Case No. 80 of 2017, dated 25.03.2017, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the petitioner, along with others, kidnapped the son of the informant.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics and suspicion. He further submits that the petitioner is not the resident of the village of the informant and there is no direct or indirect material connecting him with the alleged offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3368 of 2025(3) dt.09-05-2025 2/2

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that though the petitioner is named in the First Information Report, which was registered on 25.03.2017, the petitioner took shelter of law for grant of anticipatory bail in the year 2024, i.e. after seven years of the alleged occurrence. He further submits that the kidnapped boy is still traceless and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner.

6. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail after seven years of the alleged occurrence though he is named in the First Information Report, kidnapped boy is still traceless and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √