Bhanu Rajak @ Manu @ Manu Rajak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43296 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2025 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Bhanu Rajak @ Manu @ Manu Rajak Son of Hiro Rajak R/o Mohalla-New Colony Ward No 8 / 39 PS- Saharasa Sadar, District Saharasa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-09-2025 Heard Mr.Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 178 of 2025 dated 09.02.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 09.02.2025 at about 3:00 p.m., while the informant, Sanjeev Kumar, was near the old emergency ward, he noticed, the petitioner along with two other individuals conversing near the Sudha dairy shop, in the meantime, the petitioner called the informant and when he went there, the petitioner fired two shots at him with a pistol, causing firearm injuries on his right jaw and right arm.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43296 of 2025(3) dt.10-09-2025 2/2

4. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel are that at Sadar Hospital, Saharsa, petitioner and the informant were engaged, petitioner was engaged as supervisor of house keeping workers whereas, the informant was engaged as security guard supervisor and there was some tense relation in between them owing to which, the petitioner has been falsely roped in the alleged occurrence, though, the informant sustained injuries but some other person might have caused injury to him.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegation relating to causing of firearm injuries to the informant by this petitioner, which is supported by the informant's injury report, and also taking into account the recovery of the firearm used in the occurrence upon the disclosure made by the petitioner, coupled with the petitioner's four criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, petitioner's prayer for bail stands rejected. (Shailendra Singh, J) maynaz/- U T