Ritesh Kumar @ Narayan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16567 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2024 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna ====================================================== RITESH KUMAR @ NARAYAN SON OF RANJEET KUMAR @ RANJIT SINGH R/O Vill.- Jamalpur, P.S.- Athmalgola, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-04-2025 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 302 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The informant alleges that he was a renter in the house of one Arvind Singh, where other tenants also reside. Three months ago, one of the tenant came in inebriated condition and started abusing and assaulting him, whereupon the informant made a complaint to the owner of the house. On 07.04.2024, six unknown persons came at the room of the
2/4 informant, out of whom one of the person fired upon him, which hit on the head of the cousin of the informant resulting into grievous injury. On hulla, all the six accused persons fled away.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the FIR contended that admittedly the F.I.R. has been instituted against unknown miscreants, however, during the course of investigation, the accused person namely, Golu @ Sepu and this petitioner were apprehended. Barring the confessional statement and suspicion, there is no material suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. Moreover, the case of the petitioner is based on parity inasmuch as co-accused person Randheer Kumar @ Randhir Kumar, whose name has also been surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Golu @ Sepu, has been accorded the privilege of regular bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 11964 of 2025 vide order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-3 to the bail application). The petitioner has been incarcerated since 15.07.2024 and the investigation of the crime is complete.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that apart from the complicity of the petitioner in the crime, his name has been disclosed by the co-accused persons, the petitioner also bears
3/4 four criminal antecedent as has been disclosed in paragraph no. 3.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that save and except the confessional statement, there is no other material collected during the course of investigation suggesting the complicity of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that other coaccused persons having identical allegation has been allowed the privilege of regular bail, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Patna City, Patna in connection with Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 302 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.
4/4 (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T