Sanjeet Kumar Yadav @ Sanjeet Rai @ Dhela Gope @ Dhela v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17548 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-448 Year-2023 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar Yadav @ Sanjeet Rai @ Dhela Gope @ Dhela Son of Devnandi Ray @ Dewali Ray Resident of Village- Marufganj, Nagla, P.s.- Malsalami, Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Anand for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. A dead body of about 24 years boy was lying at the place of occurrence and the F.I.R. was lodged against the unknown.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is neither named in the F.I.R. nor was apprehended on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17548 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 2/2 spot. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is nothing in the record indicating the complicity of the petitioner in the occurrence barring the confessional statement of co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is submitted that charge has not been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 24.09.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T