← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73885/2019bail rejected

Doma @ Ranjan Paswan @ Ranjan Dom Paswan @ Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

2020-10-21Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73885 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-828 Year-2018 Thana- KATIHAR District- Katihar ====================================================== Doma @ Ranjan Paswan @ Ranjan Dom Paswan @ Ranjan, age 27 years, Male, Son of Lal Paswan Resident of Village - Fasiya Balutola, P.S.- Katihar Nagar, Distt.- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Anand Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Bhushan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-10-2020 Heard Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Katihar Nagar P.S. Case No. 828 of 2018 registered for offences under sections 302, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the present case, an allegation ha been made against the petitioner to have fired from the pistol upon the brother of the Informant Golu Kumar which hit upon his chest and, later on, he died at the Sadar Hospital at Katihar. In paragraph nos. 7, 8 & 13 of the Case Diary, the eye-witnesses have supported the allegation of fire made against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73885 of 2019(8) dt.21-10-2020 2/2 the present petitioner.

Looking to the entirety of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

If the petitioner has already been taken into custody, as has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no knowledge about the present status of the petitioner, in that circumstances, this order will not be treated to be applicable for the present petitioner. (Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T