Patna High Court – Orders
Ramjee Yadav @ Ramjee Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 27 April, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
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