Ranjit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4526 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2021 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== RANJIT SINGH Son of Ravindra Singh Resident of Village - Langarpur, P.S. - Barh, District - Patna.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeIII-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Patna in connection with Special Case No.104 of 2021, arising out of Barh P.S. Case No. 142/2021 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The accusation against the appellant is that he in

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4526 of 2021(3) dt.10-03-2022 2/2 association with other co-accused named in the F.I.R. has shot dead the husband of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on suspicion due to previous enmity. Informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence. The allegation levelled against the appellant is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Appellant has no criminal antecedent and been languishing in custody since 19.04.2021.

Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

However, the appellant would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Trivedi/- U T