Ankit Jha @ Ankit Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82713 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-453 Year-2023 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ankit Jha @ Ankit Kumar Jha, S/o Kanhai Jha, R/O Village- Harpur Kalan, P.S- Majorganj, Distt- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-04-2025 Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 453 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with others arrived at the door of the informant, threatened the husband of the informant and the petitioner fired with country made pistol at the head of the informant's husband due to which, he fell down there and died.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that in this case, inquest and postmortem were prepared

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82713 of 2024(5) dt.07-04-2025 2/2 prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. It has also been submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and there is no independent witness. All the witnesses are the family members. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 18.06.2024.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that from perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the witnesses who have been examined during investigation, have categorically stated that this petitioner has fired at the head of the deceased due to which he died.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. Petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T