Ram Janam Prasad Yadav @ Ramjanam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10274 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2023 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Ram Janam Prasad Yadav @ Ramjanam Yadav S/O Shri Amirak Yadav R/O Vill.- Chhatarpur, P.S- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable u/s 307, 324, 326, 341, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegedly, petitioner is said to have fired upon the informant's wife (deceased).

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 been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. Both the parties are full brothers and there is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10274 of 2025(2) dt.05-03-2025 2/2 case and counter case between them. He further submits that earlier the FIR has been lodged under Section 307 of the IPC, but when during course of treatment, the wife of the informant succumbed to the injury, the I.O. has filed application for addition of Section 302 of the IPC. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent and he has been languishing in custody since 30.09.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State 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