Rajesh Ranjan @ Rakesh Ranjan @ Chandan Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75479 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2023 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rajesh Ranjan @ Rakesh Ranjan @ Chandan Thakur S/O Sri Ram Narayan Thakur @ Ram Narayan Thakur Village- Sahpur Ajhaul, Ps. Bahadurpur, Dist. Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 364 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354(B), 506, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, when the informant was going to market, the accused persons along with 4-5 unknown persons equipped with pistol, iron rod, lathi and danda surrounded the informant. Thereafter, the petitioner assaulted the informant by means of iron rod, due to which, he sustained injuries both on his head and hand. It is further alleged that the accused persons snatched the gold chain and mobile of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75479 of 2023(3) dt.19-07-2024 2/2

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and has committed no offence. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner and informant are co-sharer and there is a previous land dispute between the parties. The injuries are simple in nature.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the doctor has found five injuries over the vital part on the person of the informant. During investigation, witnesses have supported the prosecution story. He further submitted that petitioner having two criminal antecedents of similar nature. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as seriousness of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Arish/- U T