Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34218/2025rejected

Ramji Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-27Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34218 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2024 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ramji Prasad S/o Late Bhikan Bhagat R/o Village- Bakim Tikam, DistrictEast Champaran, (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2025 Heard Mr. Mahendra Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 30.05.2023 in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 393 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 22.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 329(3), 326(g), 125(b), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 103(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 62(2), 124(2) of B.N.S. and 27, 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the accused persons assaulted him with lathi, danda, iron rod as also the country made pistol over the dispute related to ancestral house and also set his house on fire. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34218 of 2025(2) dt.27-06-2025 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer submits that from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the niece of the informant, namely, Sonika Kumari and later on she died and apart from that there is also allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons that they have set the house of the informant on fire.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 393 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Court below.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T