Golu Ranjan @ Ravi Ranjan @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar Mishra @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.447 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-588 Year-2025 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Golu Ranjan @ Ravi Ranjan @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar Mishra @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Golu Kumar S/o Ram Vinod Mishra R/o Village- Jagdishpur Baghnagri, PS- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Vikash Ram S/o Raudi Ram R/o Village- Chajan Harirai Tola, PS- Turki, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Preety Kunwar For the Respondent/s :
Ms. Usha Kumari 1 Ms. Sudha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned Special P.P. for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that contractor Shailesh, Golu and Sanjay called his brother for working in the house of Badal Singh. It is next alleged that high voltage wire was passing near the house of Badal, hence his brother (Rakesh) refused to work until the electricity is not disconnected, but accused persons forced him to work and abused, hence his brother started working and while
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.447 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 2/2 working, his brother got electrocuted but was admitted in a hospital from where he was brought to Apollo Hospital.
3. At this stage, learned Special P.P., after perusing the case diary, submits that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS has already been given to the appellant, as such, appellant does not have any apprehension of arrest presently.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant does not dispute the said submission, hence seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh anticipatory bail application, if need arises.
5. Permission is accorded.
6. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T