Ramanand Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29302 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2024 Thana- Raghunathpur District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ramanand Thakur S/o Shambhu Thakur R/o Village - Murarpur, P.S. - Harsidhi, Dist - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhannjay Kumar-II, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 26.12.2024 and the informant alleges that Jhunnu Kumar Singh @ Mohit Singh called his son to bring petrol as there was no fuel in his motorcycle, accordingly, his son went with petrol to the shop of Sachin electrical where Jhunnu came and sat on the bike of the son of the informant and thereafter they went towards Gadariya side and Jhunnu shot him causing injury on head and hand. Further, the informant, on coming to know about

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29302 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/3 the occurrence, reached the place of occurrence where the son of the informant disclosed that he was shot by Jhunnu.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant specifically alleges that on coming to know about the occurrence he reached the place of occurrence and his son in an injured condition disclosed that it was Jhunnu who shot him, as such, it is submitted that petitioner during the course of investigation came to be falsely implicated.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that when the allegation in the FIR is perused minutely, it would manifest that the same records that the son of the informant apart from disclosing the name of Jhunnu also disclosed the name of some other accused whom the informant could not gather properly but then it is submitted that during the course of investigation the name of the petitioner transpired and he was apprehended and thereafter his confessional statement was recorded at para 87 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29302 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 3/3 the case diary wherein he has given a vivid description of the occurrence and based on his confession the arm by which the occurrence was committed was recovered.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T