Rishi Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.75674 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2018 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rishi Ranjan Son of Late Rajesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Fakuli, P.S.- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Vikram For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sri Panchanand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 15-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner who is languishing in judicial custody since 23.08.2018 seeks bail in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 75 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case as lodged by the father of the deceased is that his son was an Assistant Teacher and while on duty some miscreants fired on his son and killed him. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal history, not named in the F.I.R. and it is only on the basis of suspicion that he has been made accused. He submits that there has been no T.I. Parade was the incident occurred in the school

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.75674 of 2018(3) dt.15-01-2019 2/3 office where other teachers were also present although the accused had hidden their face. He further submits that one of the co-accused has already been granted the privilege of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 74298 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the petitioner and the coaccused had love relation which was objected by the husband (deceased) Radhesh Ranjan and the petitioner in his confessional statement, which was recorded on 22.08.2018 by the police, has confessed his complicity of hiring of shooter which is evident from para-81 of the case diary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, I am not inclined to enlarged the petitioner on bail.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, accordingly, rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) devendra/- U T

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.75674 of 2018(3) dt.15-01-2019 3/3