Amitabh Ranjan @ Pappu Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18951 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2024 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Amitabh Ranjan @ Pappu Sharma S/O Late Surendra Sharma R/O VillageSendhwa, P.S- Parasbigha, Distt.- Jehanabad (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 107 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 307, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

3. According to FIR, the petitioner is a notorious criminal and has secured a certificate of his death being present in his house. The STF raided his house and when the main door was forcibly opened, the petitioner protested. Some police personnel suffered injuries. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner started firing, but the police personnel escaped. Later on, he was arrested along with other co-accused persons and some arms and ammunition were recovered from his house.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18951 of 2025(5) dt.13-08-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no doubt, the petitioner has strong criminal antecedents, but so far as the present case is concerned, it appears to be false, since not a single person suffered any kind of injury, despite the allegation of indiscriminate firing. He has further submitted that the case is still pending for the appearance of other accused persons, whereas the petitioner is under custody for more than a year. He has also submitted that the seizure list has not been prepared in presence of the independent witnesses.

5. Mr. J.N. Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is a notorious criminal, having a number of criminal cases against him.

6. Presently, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, the same is hereby rejected.

7. The learned trial court is directed to split the trial of the present petitioner from those who are absconding and to make every endeavour to dispose of the trial as early as possible.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T