Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7489 (JHR)

RAM PAHAN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1742/2025 · 2025-07-09

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:18551 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1742 of 2025 ------ Ram Pahan, aged about 35 years, son of Late Kandu Pahan, Resident of Village: Chandwe, P.O. + P.S. Kanke, Dist: Ranchi. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roshan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP ----- 03/ 09.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.218/2024, for offences under Sections 118(2)/109/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. is against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired on the confessional statement of the co-accused who has shot at the injured person. Even if his statement is of any value the only material in it is that on the instigation of this petitioner, he has shot at the injured person. He lastly submits that Saurav Kumar Singh, the co-accused has already been granted regular bail. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record, I find that the informant was shot by a fire arm. There were two bullet injuries on his leg and those two bullets were extracted. One Saurav Kumar Singh was arrested and he confessed that on instigation of this petitioner, he has shot the informant. 5. Considering the allegation against this petitioner, this is a case which needs investigation, even investigation in presence of this petitioner and he needs to be interrogated also. Thus, this is 2025:JHHC:18551 2 not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Sandeep. Cp-3