Ranveer Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13991 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-936 Year-2021 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== RANVEER KUMAR Son of Chandra Kishore Yadav Resident of VillageParasbanni, P.S.- Salkhua, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Rashmi Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akbar Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the State and the informant.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. No. 287 of 2022 arising out of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 936 of 2021 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 06.12.2021 by the informant, Anil Kumar.

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 05.12.2021, at around 2-3 p.m. his son was murdered by hatching conspiracy by the petitioner along with other accused and some unknown persons in which petitioner and other accused one by one fired upon his son. Accordingly, the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and it is a hearsay. As per the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13991 of 2023(5) dt.18-08-2023 2/2 F.I.R. itself, the informant came to know through the locals present at the place of the occurrence.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the specific allegation is made against three accused persons by the informant and one of them namely, Indal Yadav whose case has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench vide Cr. Misc. No. 62962 of 2022. Let the same be kept on record.

Though, there is force in the submissions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation is on the basis of hearsay, the informant is not the eye witness to the occurrence, in view of the fact that Indal Yadav, with similar allegation, his bail application stands rejected, as stated above, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) kiran/- U T