Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8013 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2014 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Kumar S/O Bhushan Rai R/o Vill.- Neora, P.S - Bihta, District - Patna, At Present Hanuman Nagar, 90 feet Road, P.S - Agamkuan, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he works as a clerk in Danapur Court. Further, on 02.04.2014 while he was returning home, he was intercepted by the named accused persons including the petitioner and Bhushan Rai and petitioner were carrying pistol and hit him with the butt of the pistol causing injury on head and petitioner also fired and thereafter Bhushan took out Rs.1,750/- from him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8013 of 2025(2) dt.06-03-2025 2/2 informant. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that the petitioner in broad day light near the Court premises would have committed an occurrence of the nature as alleged when he is a person with clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case is of the year 2014 and the petitioner has moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail in the year 2025 i.e. after 11 years of the occurrence, moreso when he is named in the FIR. It is further submitted that anticipatory bail is not for mere asking but then conduct of the accused is also to be appreciated and it appears that the petitioner moved at his leisure for seeking anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 73 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur (Patna)/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T