Rituraj @ Rana v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22987 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-363 Year-2019 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rituraj @ Rana Son Of Ramnath Singh R/O- Village- Morsand, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 14-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Prosecution case is that while the informant along with the driver Santosh Singh, gunman Anil Kumar Yadav and Pratosh Kumar was on route with Rupess One crore on the cash van for loading in the ATMS and in the meantime, the miscreants, riding on two motorcycles, chased the said van and shot fire causing bullet injuries to the driver of the van. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22987 of 2022(4) dt.14-12-2022 2/2 the name of the petitioner came into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Anand Kumar. No cash was looted from the van as well as the petitioner has not been apprehended at the spot.

However, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that co-accused Anand Kumar also confessed about complicity of the petitioner as well as from perusal of the case diary vide para nos.101 and 102, it appears that the independent witness has supported the prosecution case and took name of this petitioner as an accused. He further submits that petitioner has criminal antecedents of four cases.

After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory of the petitioner is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail and the court below may pass order without being prejudiced by this order. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T