Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9480 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar S/O Krishna Yadav R/O Village- Bahorma, P.S.- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya.

2.

Binod Yadav S/O Yogendra Yadav R/O Village- Bahorma, P.S.- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya.

3.

Sikandar Yadav S/O Ashok Yadav R/O Village- Bahorma, P.S.- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya.

4.

Bindbihari Kumar S/O Ashok Yadav R/O Village- Bahorma, P.S.- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2025 Heard Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 08.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 337, 338, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Surendra Yadav was returning back from river, saw

2/4 accused persons filing soil by tractor on the land on which "Govardhan Puja" was celebrated in the village, the informant made protest whereupon all the accused persons started abusing and assaulting him. It is further stated that the informant ran towards his home but the accused persons chased him and there assaulted, snatched gold chain worth Rs. 25,000/- started stone pelting causing injury to the informant's infant niece and his cousin.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that in fact no such occurrence had taken place and it appears from the F.I.R. itself that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against these petitioners rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including these petitioners.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners carry one more cases other than the present one.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

3/4 of the case and the fact that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt attributed against these petitioners rather there is general and omnibus allegation against these petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gaya in connection with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions :-

(1) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

4/4

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T