Ranjeet Yadav @ Kanbuchha Yadav @ Ranjeet v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20219 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -225 Year- 2016 Thana -SULTANGANJ District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Ranjeet Yadav @ Kanbuchha Yadav @ Ranjeet S/o late Bhagwan Yadav Resident of Mohalla- Nayee Sirhi Ghat, P.S. Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 12-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 02.01.2017 in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 225 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that while he was returning home the petitioner along with six other accused persons armed with weapons intercepted and the petitioner is said to have fired on the informant, causing grievous injuries and he was taken for treatment to the hospital.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case as both parties were inimical to each other and Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 209 of 2015 was lodged by the petitioner side against the informant side in which

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20219 of 2017 (6) dt.12-09-2017 2/2 they were forcing to withdraw the said case. He submits that charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the injury has been found to be grievous in nature and the petitioner is the direct assailant.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage.

However, he may renew the prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) khushbu/- U T