Rajan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7184 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2024 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== Rajan Kumar, S/o Jai Singh @ Jay Singh, Resdent Of Village - Surangapar, P.S- Fatuha, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 19-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 243 of 2024 dated 20.04.2024 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused persons fired on the husband of the informant. It is specifically alleged that petitioner, Ranjan Kumar shot him on his waist and hand. Co-accused, namely, Mithlesh Kumar shot the husband of the informant on his chest and Akhlish Kumar shot him on abdomen.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7184 of 2025(2) dt.19-02-2025 2/2 petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he shot the husband of the informant which hit on his hand and waist. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 18.04.2024 while the F.I.R. has been lodged on 20.04.2024 without any plausible explanation. The petitioner and the informant are the resident of the same locality. Lastly, it has been submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Since there is specific allegation against the petitioner, who shot at the husband of the informant on his hand and waist, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner stands rejected.

8. The application stands dismissed.

(Khatim Reza, J) premchand/- U T