Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72185 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2021 Thana- MAIN P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar S/o Sanjeet Yadav R/o Village- Paibigha Dih, P.S.- Main, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 379, 386, 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and 27 of Arms Act.

3.

Allegedly, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons entered the shop of the informant and started abusing him. It is further alleged that they took Rs.10,000/- from cash box and one gold chain from the informant's father. The petitioner and other co-accused persons also assaulted the informant's father and brother.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. No offence as alleged has ever took place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72185 of 2024(2) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 He has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. As per FIR, allegation against the petitioner is to snatch the gold chain. Except this, there is no allegation of assault or abuse attributed on this petitioner. The specific allegation of causing fire arm injury is against one, Ranveer Kumar. There is no allegation of tampering the witness against the petitioner. The petitioner has three criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application and has been languishing in custody since 12.06.2024.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, period of custody of the petitioner and the fact that there is no allegation of tampering the witness against the petitioner, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/the Successor Court, in connection with Main P.S. (Pai Bigha O.P.) Case No. 17 of 2021.

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