Ranjeet Kumar @ Chita v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32795 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2017 Thana -IMAMGANJ District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Ranjeet Kumar @ Chita, son of Ramdeo Sao, resident of VillageRaniganj, P.S.- Imamganj, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.. .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramashish, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 92 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made accused in the present case by Sub Inspector of Police Laxman Kumar, who is himself informant. It is alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of stolen motorcycle and the petitioner was apprehended when he was trying to flee away on seeing the police party. Learned counsel further submits that in fact the seizure list has been falsely created because the seizure list is said to be prepared at 7:25 PM on 2.6.2017 giving the Imamganj P.S. case number but the First Information Report shows that the Imamganj P.S. case no. 92 of 2017 was registered only at 9:00 PM. Learned counsel

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32795 of 2017 (2) dt.20-07-2017 2/2 further submits that the seizure is not in accordance with Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. He has drawn my attention to the statement made in paragraph 3 of the petition according to which the petitioner is in accused in one more case under Section 366/34 IPC however he submits that in the said case the petitioner has been made accused by police because the petitioner happens to be a person of labour class and the police is always insisting him to carry liquor from Jharkhand which the petitioner refuse to do.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati Gaya, in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 92 of 2017, subject to the condition, under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C., that one of the bailors would be a family member of the petitioner having no criminal antecedent and the petitioner shall co-operate in trial, and two regular default in putting appearance before the trial court shall lead to cancellation of bail bonds.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) siddharth/- U T