Ranjay Sahani @ Ranjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68035 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2016 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East Champaran ====================================================== RANJAY SAHANI @ RANJAY KUMAR Son of Tulsi Sahani Resident of Village- Arara, P.S.- Adapur, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 35 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, an unknown person was demanding ransom of rupees two lacs from the informant by mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire allegation is false. The petitioner was accused in Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 361 of 2016 under Section 353, 387 of the Indian Penal Code but he has been acquitted in that case. She has also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68035 of 2021(2) dt.25-07-2022 2/2 mentioned that mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR are not of the petitioner rather those mobile numbers were registered in the name of Ghanshayam Kumar Paswan.

During course of investigation it was figured that the petitioner used to obtain Adhar Cards and Identity Cards of his covillagers and after committing forgery and cheating he used to procure Sim Cards. He was the person who obtained the Sim Card in the name of co-villager Ghanshyam Kumar Paswan and demanded ransom from the informant.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the materials emerged during course of investigation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As such, it is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and makes a prayer for bail it shall be disposed of on its own merit and the material available in the case diary without being prejudiced by this order.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T