Sujit Mahto @ Sujeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4332 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2022 Thana- ISHUPUR BARAHAT District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Sujit Mahto @ Sujeet Kumar Son of Sadhu Mahto Resident of Village - Kisnichak, P.S. - Ishipur (Barahat), District - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 12-02-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Ishipur (Barahat) P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 under Sections 302, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against seven named accused persons including the petitioner against whom there is allegation that they made gun shot on the head of son of informant due to which his son died on place of occurrence.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4332 of 2025(2) dt.12-02-2025 2/2 He further submits that the name of the petitioner has been inserted in this case only due to jealousy as there is old land dispute going on between the parties.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order, the specific allegation has been made against the petitioner that he has fired as prosecution witness has supported in the case diary of paragraph 54 and 55.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, trial court is directed to consider the regular bail application of the petitioner, if he surrenders within 6 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial court shall pass order without being prejudice of the present order preferably on the same day.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T