Ramji Rajvanshi @ Ramji Rajwanshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36637 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2015 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya ====================================================== Ramji Rajvanshi @ Ramji Rajwanshi Son of Etwari Rajvanshi VILLAGESUKHEBIGANA KAJOOR PS-ATRI DISTRICT-GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akbar Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Atri P.S. Case No.75 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 353, 427 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against 30 named accused persons including the petitioner against whom there is allegation that they have attacked on the police party and looted arms. There is allegation of loot of magazine, cartridges, ammunition, etc. by assaulting the police personnel.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner has unnecessarily been made accused in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36637 of 2025(2) dt.18-06-2025 2/2 case.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean and there is one criminal case pending against him in which he is on bail. Upon bare reading of entire FIR, there is no specific allegation against him. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR. He further submits that this case is of the year 2015 and after gap of about 10 years, petitioner has preferred anticipatory bail.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, trial court is directed to consider the regular bail application of the petitioner, if he surrenders within 4 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial court shall pass order without being prejudice of the present order preferably on the same day.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T