Ranjit Jaiswal @ Pancham Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12227 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2019 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== RANJIT JAISWAL @ PANCHAM KUMAR Son of Late Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Resident of Village - Grudwara Road, P.S.- Danapur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Danapur P.S. Case No. 164 of 2019 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons including the petitioner made indiscriminate firing due to which the deceased died.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12227 of 2021(4) dt.29-03-2022 2/2 present case. As per the allegation, the petitioner and coaccused are said to have fired on the deceased. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the uncle of the petitioner has been examined in paragraph 7 of the Case Diary (Report-II) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. were not supported. From perusal of paragraph 19 of the Case Diary (Report-II), it is evident that the assailant is one Mukesh @ Mukku Baba.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that petitioner is one of the assailants who is alleged to have fired upon the deceased. As per the postmortem report, there is two wound of entry which corroborates the allegations made in the F.I.R..

Considering the nature of accusation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders in the Court below and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T