Ranjeetchudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50450 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Ranjeetchudhary @ Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary S/o Late Ramadharchaudhary @ Dhadekachaudhary R/o Village-Belaur, P.S.-Udwantnagar, ara, DistrictBhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Chandi P.S. Case No. 266 of 2023, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the informant along with his partner went to the sand ghat for inspection and cleaning of ghat, in the meantime, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons came there and asked them to stop their work. On denial by the informant, the petitioner shot fire from his rifle and ordered to kill him due to which the informant sustained three bullet injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50450 of 2024(3) dt.06-09-2024 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no specific allegation attributed towards the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence on the alleged date. The bank statement and ATM withdrawal of the petitioner shows his present at Dehradun on the alleged date of occurrence. The petitioner has got three criminal antecedents in which he is on bail.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP for the State also submits that specific allegation of threatening and firing gun shots to the informant is against the petitioner. The informant has also sustained three bullet injuries. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Prayer is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T