Ranjan @ Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43903 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2018 Thana- JEHANABAD RAIL P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== RANJAN @ RANJAN KUMAR S/o Vishvanath Yadav R/o Mohalla- Unta Madarpur, P.S. and Distt.- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jehanabad Rail P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 registered under Sections 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that while he was traveling from Patna-Hatia train and when the train crossed the platform and reached near the cabin of Jehanabad station, two boys struck on his hand and snatched his bag. The informant also jumped from the train and caught one of the boys but the accused persons assaulted and snatched his bag and fled away. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence is said to have taken place on 08.07.2018 but the informant lodged the case on 11.07.2018. It is further submitted that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43903 of 2019(2) dt.17-07-2019 2/2 falsely implicated the petitioner in the case for the reasons best known to him but it appears that it is a case of train robbery. When train reached near the cabin of Jehanabad station, two persons assaulted the informant and snatched his bag containing mobile and other articles but the informant also jumped and caught one of the accused. Later on, accused persons assaulted the informant and fled away after snatching his bag. The informant himself disclosed that since he got grievous injury on his hand, he could not give information to the Rail police on the next day. The informant disclosed the name of the accused persons as they were calling the names of each other. The informant also claimed to identify the accused. The accused is required to be put on T.I.P.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T