Vikash Ram @ Vikash Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13886 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2024 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vikash Ram @ Vikash Kumar Ram S/O Jai Ram R/O Village- Fatehabad, P.SParoo, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Brahmaputra Singh Ishu- Advocate Ms. Poonam Kumari- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mohammed Arif- A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 406, 420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her daughter was married in the Year 2016 to Dharmendra Ram and Dharmendra was working as a labour in Bengaluru while petitioner in absence of the husband of her daughter coaxed her to take a loan through women selfhelp group for him. Accordingly, the victim took a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the Women Self Help Group and gave it to
2/4 the petitioner, but when her daughter used to asked the petitioner to return the money, she was abused and threatened with rape. Further, alleges that on 30.03.2024 under a preplanned conspiracy at 11.00 P.M., the petitioner along with other accused strangulated her daughter to death with an intention of misappropriating the money.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that though there is allegation that the daughter of the informant took a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from a Women Self Help Group, but whether she gave that money to the petitioner or not is an aspect of investigation. It is ext submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why petitioner along with his family members would have killed the deceased for a meager some of Rs.3,50,000/-.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that in the post mortem, a ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased which amply demonstrates that she was strangulated to death. It is also submitted that husband of the deceased was not staying in the
3/4 house and petitioner being neighbour with whom dispute is alleged, as such, a suspicion is raised against him. It is also submitted that in the event, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to establish his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur (West) in connection with Paroo P. S. Case No.93 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner, despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the
4/4 investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after recording reasons.
9. Further, it is made clear that in the event, if chargesheet is filed connecting the petitioner with the offence in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall come to an end.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station through the learned trial Court. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T