Arjun Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62989 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2024 Thana- MATIYARIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Arjun Ram Son of Laxmi Ram Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Matiyariya, DistrictWest Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manaur Alam, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Matiyariya P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable u/s 323, 341, 353, 324, 354, 504, 506/34 IPC. 3.

As per the prosecution case, when the police officials went to apprehend the warranted accused Rajesh Ram, the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner interrupted the police and assaulted them with various weapons and facilitated the warranted Rajesh Kumar to flee away.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62989 of 2024(3) dt.22-11-2024 2/2 taken place. It is submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. There is no any legal evidence or cogent material to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is serious nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the anticipatory bail application of similarly situated co-accused Rajesh Ram and Mukesh Ram has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.51101 of 2024.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the anticipatory bail application of similarly situated co-accused has been rejected by this Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, named above, on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T