Rama Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19388 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-678 Year-2023 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rama Kumar Son of Radheshyam Ray Resident of vill.-Bijbanni, P.S.-Jitna, Distt.-East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kundan Rathore, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 678 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. While the informant, being a Manager of a Petrol Pump, was going to deposit the sale proceeds, on the way two miscreants dashed and assaulted him with the butt of country made pistol and one person, who was standing near the place of occurrence with one Apache motorcycle, ordered to kill the informant and thereafter the informant sustained injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19388 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 2/2 implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been made accused on the confessional statement of co-accused, Sunny Kumar. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted in view of the judgment passed in Indresh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.938 of 2022), the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T