Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28338 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2019 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== RANJIT KUMAR Son of Munna Yadav Resident of Village- Madhopur, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prem Ranjan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 260 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Later on, section 302 of the IPC was added.

As per the prosecution case, while the informant was sitting at his tea stall along with his staffs, in the meantime, this petitioner and co-accused Tempo Yadav @ Raj Narayan came at his shop. There after 06 to 07 unknown persons came there. It is further alleged that this petitioner along with other co-accused entered into his shop and started indiscriminate firing. The informant got firearm injury on his left thigh. One customer and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28338 of 2020(3) dt.08-01-2021 2/2 one staff Yogendra Ram also sustained firearm injuries and thereafter all of them fled away.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is general and omnibus allegation. Chargesheet has already been submitted. Petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2019. Counsel for the informant however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation of firing against this petitioner as a result of which two persons sustained firearm injuries and one died during course of treatment. During course of investigation, some of the injured witnesses have also supported the prosecution version and petitioner has got criminal antecedent.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T