Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45696/2026dismissed

Sujit Kumar @ Sujit Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-20Mr. Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45696 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2026 Thana- DANDARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Sujit Kumar @ Sujit Paswan S/o Raja Ram Paswan R/o Village- Rajopur, Katarmala, P.S- Dandari, Dist- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amit Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The accused/petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Dandari P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 352, 308(3), 109 r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2013 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.03.2026, the petitioner along with six co-accused persons and 3-4 unknown persons, formed an unlawful assembly, entered the informant's shop and demanded Rs. 1 lakh as monthly extortion and also abused and assaulted the informant. Subsequently, fired gunshots at the son of the informant when

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 45696 of 2026(2) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 he tried to escape. The petitioner and other accused also threatened to kill the informant and his family members, if the extortion amount was not paid.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific allegation against petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in view seriousness of allegations coupled with the fact that petitioner has three criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J) veena/- U T