Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29650/2023dismissed

Ranjit Ram @ Ranjit Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-28Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29650 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2022 Thana- KAHALGAON RPF/POST DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== Ranjit Ram @ Ranjit Kumar Ram Son Of Misari Ram Resident Of Ward No.- 17, Siv Kumari Pahar, Kahalgaon, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Neelam Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in RPF/ POST/ Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 3(a) of the RP (UP) Amendment Act, 2012, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, RJM, Bhagalpur.

3. As per FIR, it is alleged that some unknown thief committed theft of coal from the running train which was later on recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29650 of 2023(3) dt.28-08-2023 2/2 specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that no any incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has two criminal antecedent of similar nature as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the process u/s 82 and 83 has been completed against the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of 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.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T