Ranjan Paswan @ Anjan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89383 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Ranjan Paswan @ Anjan Paswan S/o- Ramjeet Paswan Resident of VillageChanhat, P.S- Haspura, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the informant :

Ms. Nitee Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Manisha Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Perused the Case Diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No. 77 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 103(1), 76 & 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The case of the prosecution is that altogether 33 persons named in the FIR have assaulted the family members of the informant due to which one Chandradeep Bhagat died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and the entire prosecution case is false and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89383 of 2025(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 fabricated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted the deceased and one Suresh due to which they sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, Chandradeep (deceased) succumbed to injuries. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant jointly prayed that petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also there being specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T