Ranjan Sah @ Ranjan Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28571 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- SANOKHAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Ranjan Sah @ Ranjan Kumar Sah son of Parmanand Singh R/o- Choti Naki Ps- Sanokhar Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-07-2024 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sanokhar P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 registered under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this petitioner along with other co-accused persons kidnapped the sister of informant and caused death to her for the property.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is brother of the husband of deceased. Petitioner is a student and he is living in Chattisgarh where he is pursuing B.A. and at the time of occurrence he was in Chattisgarh. Petitioner has got no concern with the alleged occurrence. Further submission is that informant is not an eye witness of the case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28571 of 2024(3) dt.30-07-2024 2/2 and only of suspicion, petitioner has been made accused in this case. As a matter of fact, the sister of informant died due to an accident.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that during course of investigation it has come that petitioner and other accused persons were lastly seen with the deceased and after that, the dead body of deceased was recovered from Mahagama. Petitioner has got two criminal antecedents. Hence, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the nature of the accusation and the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T