Ramagya Raut @ Ramgya Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7390 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2024 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Ramagya Raut @ Ramgya Prasad S/o- Dharmanath Raut Village- Dhenuki PS-Panapur District- Saran Chhapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP.

Mr. Anil Kumar Maharaj, Adv.

Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 213 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 115, 118(1), 117, 109, 103(1), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per prosecution case, the allegation against the accused persons including the petitioner is that they assaulted the informant and her husband brutally by means of deadly weapons due to which the informant's husband sustained injury and died in course of treatment.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7390 of 2025(2) dt.28-02-2025 2/2 been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. Nothing specific has been attributed against him. Both the parties are agnates and there is admitted land dispute between them. During the course of investigation, no any corroborating material has been found against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been languishing in custody since 11.09.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T