Chhotan @ Chhotu Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34941 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-686 Year-2021 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== Chhotan @ Chhotu Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Son Of Arjun Yadav Resident Of Village- Singhpur, Ps- Bankey Bazar (RAUSHANGANJ) , Distt- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sherghati P.S. Case No. 686 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Sherghati, District: Gaya.

3. As per the prosecution case, allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons have committed murder of the husband of the informant.

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.34941 of 2023(5) dt.10-10-2023 2/2 specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been made accused in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused, Amanullah Khan @ Arman Khan @ Foto Khan and Pankaj Paswan. He further submits that the petitioner is out of Bihar on the date of occurrence. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent 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 petitioner is also involved in the present case and there is ample evidence against the petitioner available in the case diary. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, 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