Ranjit Kumar @ Commandar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10279 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-273 Year-2019 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran ====================================================== RANJIT KUMAR @ COMMANDAR, son of Ram Pujan Prasad, resident of Ward No. 14, Gudri Rai Ke Chowk, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-08-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through video conferencing.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Taraiya Police Station Case No. 273 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, accosted the informant and snatched a bag, containing silver ornaments and when the people around the place of occurrence protested, the co-accused took out a pistol and opened fire, in which one shopkeeper got injured.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10279 of 2020(4) dt.24-08-2020 2/3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of the confessional statement made by the arrested co-accused. He further submits that the petitioner is working in Delhi and he had come to see his ailing father and he has been implicated in this case at the behest of the co-accused.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that in course of investigation, it has come, in the case diary, that from the Call Data Record of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner had a talk with the co-accused, who has been apprehended and at the time of occurrence, the location of the mobile phone of the petitioner was near the place of occurrence. He further submits that two co-accused persons, in their confessional statements, have vividly explained the description of the occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that as per the electronic evidence, the petitioner was found talking with the accused persons and in course of investigation, it has come to light that the location of the mobile of the petitioner was near

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10279 of 2020(4) dt.24-08-2020 3/3 the place of occurrence, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √