Ravi @ Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan @ Karu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48483 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-695 Year-2023 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ravi @ Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan @ Karu Son of Pramod Prasad R/O Mohalla- Bigrahpur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-09-2024 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 695 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of causing firearm injury to the informant.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the FIR clearly suggest the omnibus nature of allegation against all the accused persons. Even if the allegation taken to be true against the petitioner of causing firearm injury i.e. on a non vital part and, as such, no offence much less under Section 307 of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48483 of 2024(3) dt.18-09-2024 2/2 Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further contended that there is no recovery of any arms or incriminating material from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been incarcerated since 13.03.2024, and now the investigation of the crime is complete and the charge-sheet has been submitted.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner has a long list of criminal antecedent, which runs nine in number and this suggest that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the specific accusation of causing firearm injury, this Court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge.

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U T