Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74580 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2024 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Son of Bechan Yadav @ Bachan Yadav Village- Malipur, PsHasanpur, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-10-2024 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Baheri P.S. Case No. 232 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5) of the BNS and section 25(1-B), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, lodged on 08.07.2024 by the informant, Barun Kumar Goswami.
3. As per the prosecution story, two motorcycles were intercepted. On one motorcycle, there were Raushan Kumar, Sonu Kumar and Chandan Kumar whereas on other motorcycle, the riders were Santish Kumar, Sonu Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar (petitioner herein). From Sonu Kumar, there is recovery of a mobile, a live cartridge has been recovered from Chandan Kumar whereas from this petitioner, there is recovery/seizure of loaded country made pistol and mobile. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74580 of 2024(2) dt.24-10-2024 2/2 has been made accused only because of his criminal antecedent and nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession whereas Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned APP submits that the perusal of para-3 would show that he is having six criminal antecedents and most of them relates to the robbery.
5. Considering the allegation that has come against him coupled with the fact that he has criminal antecedent, for the present, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) perwez U T