Ramjee Yadav @ Ramjee PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11673 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2005 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Ramjee Yadav @ Ramjee Prasad Son of Late Baso Yadav @ Domi Yadav @
                 Basudeo Prasad Resident of Village- Keshoriya, Post- Meshordh, P.S.-
                 Nardiganj, District- Nawada

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Kumar Vikram, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Anil Prasad Singh, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr.Vakil Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   27-04-2026                    Heard Mr. Kumar Vikram, learned counsel appearing

                   on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, learned APP

                   appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Vakil Kumar, learned

                   counsel appearing on behalf of informant.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Sessions Trial no. 325/07 (State Versus Rajesh Kumar &

                   another), arising out of Nardiganj, P.S case no. 14/2005

                   registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 34

                   of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) & 27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, based on the

                   fardbeyan of the informant alleging that while he was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11673 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
                                            2/5




          proceeding to cast his vote, the petitioner along with other

          accused persons, armed with firearms, allegedly surrounded

          him, fired upon him causing injury near his chest, and one of the

          accused took away his wrist watch, and it is further alleged that

          the occurrence was motivated by previous enmity arising out of

          a kidnapping case in which the accused believed that the

          informant had falsely implicated one of their family members.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated

          in the present case. The alleged occurrence took place on

          01.03.2005, whereas the FIR being Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 14

          of 2005 was instituted much thereafter on 17.04.2005. After

          investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet bearing no.

          54/2006 dated 25.08.2006 only against co-accused persons,

          namely Rajesh Kumar and Anil Yadav, and exonerated the

          petitioner by submitting final form in his favour. Even at the

          stage of cognizance, vide order dated 29.12.2006, the learned

          District Court did not find sufficient material to proceed against

          the petitioner. The petitioner has been summoned only

          subsequently by order dated 23.12.2025 passed under Section

          319 Cr.P.C., allowing the petition dated 28.04.2025 filed by the

          informant, which is not sustainable in the eye of law,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11673 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
                                            3/5




          particularly when an earlier application under Section 319

          Cr.P.C. on similar grounds had already been rejected. Out of the

          witnesses examined so far during trial, the majority have not

          supported the case against the petitioner and only a few

          interested witnesses have taken his name. There exists admitted

          enmity and land dispute between the parties, which provides

          motive for false implication. The petitioner is having clean

          antecedent. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released

          on pre-arrest bail.

                       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant,

          as well as, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

          prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as

          well as, upon perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged

          occurrence has taken place on 01.03.2005, whereas, the FIR was

          instituted on 17.04.2005. It further appears that after completion

          of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet no. 54/2006

          dated 25.08.2006 only against the co-accused persons and

          submitted final form in favour of the present petitioner. It

          further transpires that the learned District Court, while taking

          cognizance vide order dated 29.12.2006, did not proceed against

          the petitioner. The petitioner has been summoned at a much
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11673 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
                                            4/5




          belated stage during trial by order dated 23.12.2025 passed

          under Section 319 Cr.P.C., allowing the petition dated

          28.04.2025 filed by the informant, despite an earlier similar

          application having been rejected. From the materials available,

          it also appears that there is existence of prior enmity between

          the parties and there is absence of recovery of any incriminating

          article from the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the petitioner

          has, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest

          bail .

                       7. The learned District Court is directed to release the

          petitioner on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or

          surrender before the learned District Court within a period of

          four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-

          (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the

          satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending

          in connection with Nardiganj, P.S case no. 14/2005, subject to

          the condition as laid down under Section 482 of the

          BNSS//438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       8. The learned District Court is directed to verify

          the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as stated in

          paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is

          pending against the petitioner, as what has been stated in
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11673 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
                                                       5/5




                     paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.



                                               (Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-

U      T