Rajan Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85155 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2024 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Rajan Pandey S/o- Surendra Pandey Resident of village- Bangara Police Station-Kotwa District- East Champaran 2.
Arun Pandey @ Arun Kumar S/o- Late Kanhaiya Pandey Resident of village- Bangara Police Station-Kotwa District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Informant/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Nitee Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 109(1), 103(1) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Arun Pandey fired with his country made pistol on Abhiranjan Pandey on his nose and chest whereas Rajan Pandey fired at Abhishek which hit the head and neck of Abhishek.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners No. 1 is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85155 of 2024(3) dt.10-02-2025 2/2 having no criminal antecedent whereas petitioner no. 2 is having criminal antecedent of one case. It is also submitted that there is case and counter case and that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioners. It is next submitted that there is land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 23.09.2024.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that both of the injured persons have received grievous injury and the attack was pre-planned one. From perusal of the injury report, it transpires that Abhiranjan and Abhishek both have received gun shot injury and the nature of injury is grievous in nature.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
7. However, petitioners have liberty to renew their prayer for bail after six months if so advised.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T