Ranjeet Sah @ Bulbul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55734 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-602 Year-2022 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Ranjeet Sah @ Bulbul Son Of Krishna Sah R/O Village- Dumerson, PsMashrakh, Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anjani Parashar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 29-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Baniapur P.S. Case No. 602 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he fired upon the informant's brother in connivance with other co-accused persons due to which the informant's brother sustained gun shot injuries and later on he died during the course of his treatment. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case. Informant is not eye witness of the alleged occurrence. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55734 of 2023(3) dt.29-11-2023 2/2 petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 25.12.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in FIR and there is specific overt act against the petitioner to fire upon the informant's brother due to which he died. During investigation, witnesses supported the prosecution version and postmortem report also corroborated with the prosecution case. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail application.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T