← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7022/2018dismissed

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Mahto @ Ramjeet Mahto And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2018-02-13Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7022 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2017 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ======================================================

1. Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Mahto @ Ramjeet Mahto,

2. Amarjeet Mahto Both Sons of Late Shivnandan Mahto, R/o Nizampur, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. None For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.P.P.

Mr. A.K.Sinha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-02-2018 On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment, whereas learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri A.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the informant are present. I have perused the material on record, particularly the statement made in paragraph-3 of the petition. Earlier incorrect statement was made regarding clean antecedent of the petitioners, however after permission of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners corrected the statement made in paragraph-3 of the petition and it has been indicated that besides the present case, petitioners are accused in another case registered for the offence under Section 307 and other allied

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7022 of 2018(3) dt.13-02-2018 2/2 Sections of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, there is accusation that the petitioners were threatening the informant side as well as deceased not to depose in the case relating to murder and, thereafter, son of the informant was done to death and there is specific suspicion against the petitioners. Considering the fact that petitioners are having criminal antecedent, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T