Ram Babu Kushwaha @ Rambabu Kumar Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2326 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2024 Thana- MANSAHI District- Katihar ====================================================== Ram Babu Kushwaha @ Rambabu Kumar Kushwaha S/O Late Sarabjeet Kushwaha R/O Pinda, P.S- Mansahi, Distt- Katihar ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Mahendra Kumar Uraon S/O Late Chaudhary Uraon R/O Pinda, P.SMansahi, Distt- Katihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Binay Krishna Mr.Ravindra Kr Sinha No.2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Katihar in connection with G.R. No.6410 of 2024 arising out of Mansahi P. S. Case No. 124 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 109, 118(1), 118(2), 103, 191(2), 191(3), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2326 of 2025(4) dt.29-06-2026 2/3 whereby his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant has antecedent of three cases and from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, it is alleged that from the side of the appellant firing was resorted to in which Baijnath Uraon received firearm injury leading to his death. Further, Chandan and Mangal threw bomb and open firing causing injury to one Miano Devi, who was admitted at Sadar Hospital Katihar.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no specific allegation of firing is alleged against the appellant and on account of dispute relating to land, he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

5. The learned Special P. P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that Baijnath Uraon died and he had suffered

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2326 of 2025(4) dt.29-06-2026 3/3 firearm injury. Further, one Miano Devi suffered firearm injury. It is further submitted that appellant might not have committed the occurrence of firing, but then appellant is a criminal and his presence at the place of occurrence emboldened the other accused to commit the occurrence of firing leading to death of Baijnath Uraon.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

7. The prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T