Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78449 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2023 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== RANJIT YADAV @ RANJIT KUMAR YADAV S/O RAMU YADAV R/O VILLAGE- DAHIPURA, P.S.- KEOTI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kanchan Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Keoti P.S. Case No. 205 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he assaulted the informant with butt of pistol due to which his left hand got fractured.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is admitted land dispute

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78449 of 2023(2) dt.11-12-2023 2/2 between the parties. Both sides have filed cases against each other. The injury report does not support the prosecution case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific overt act against the petitioner to assault the informant with butt of pistol due to which his left hand got fractured. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order considering the fact that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T