Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45690/2025bail rejected

Ajay Uroan v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-30Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45690 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2025 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar ====================================================== Ajay Uroan S/o Naresh Uroan @ Naresh Orawn Resident of villageBhakhripur, PS- Mansahi, District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md Musowir, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard Mr. Md. Musowir, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 for the offence punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 109, 61(2), 318(4), 3(5), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged on 27.01.2025 by the informant, Rajesh Kumar Mandal.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the informant brother's mobile phone was lost on 17.01.2025 for which a complaint was lodged. When the number was activated, there was a transfer of Rs.99,930/-, the same was done in the account of this petitioner. There was further attempt made to transfer of money to the accounts of Gulam Murtuza and Sachin Kumar Yadav and when the brother

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45690 of 2025(2) dt.30-07-2025 2/2 asked the petitioner to return the amount, it was refused and further they were threatened of dire consequences. Later, they were taken to a deserted place and shot him on the head which led to the F.I.R.

4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court about the innocence of the petitioner, learned APP Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh pointed out that not only the amount has been transferred to the account of this petitioner, on a request to return the amount, the assault also took place.

5. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the grave allegation that has come against the petitioner, no relief can be extended.

6. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T