Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54370 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2020 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== RANJEET KUMAR SON OF SITAL SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGEBELWA RAI PETHIYA TOLA, PS- TURKAULIYA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar No.I For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 23-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 156/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 379 & 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. The allegation against this petitioner is that he gave

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54370 of 2021(2) dt.23-06-2022 2/2 a garasa blow on the head of nephew of the informant with an intention to kill him.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive on account of previous enmity arising out of land dispute. There is case an counter case between the parties. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of allegation petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T