Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45230 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -202 Year- 2016 Thana -SUPAUL District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Kamat , son of Pahari Kamat, resident of Supaul Ward No. 11, Police Station and District Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-11-2016 Heard Sri Arun , learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lalan Kumar , learned Additional Public Prosecutor . The sole petitioner apprehending his arrest in Supaul P.S. Case No. 202 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 379 , 384 , 504, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail primarily on the ground that other some of the accused persons at least four accused persons named as accused in the F.I.R. have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. By way of referring to Annexure- 2 it has been argued that cause of death has been shown in the post mortem examination report as due to cardio respiratory failure . He has also argued that F.I.R. was lodged much belatedly. As per informant occurrence had taken place on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45230 of 2016 (5) dt.23-11-2016 2/2 23.3.2016 whereas written complaint was filed by the informant on 31.3.2016. On aforesaid ground prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail whereas on going through F.I.R. it is evident that there is specific accusation against petitioner regarding participation in the occurrence . So far post- mortem examination report on which reliance has been placed is concerned it categorically indicates number of injuries found on the person of the deceased which has been mentioned in column no. 29 of the Annexure- 2 to the present petition It is true that some of the accused persons have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail but this court is of the opinion that in a case in which there is specific accusation in the F.I.R. and that has also been corroborated to the some extent in the post -mortem examination report that has been placed on record it cannot be a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T