Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23949 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Son Of Ranjit Rai @ Ranjit Ray @ Ranjeet Kumar Rai Resident Of Village - Bejha Deeh, Ward No.2, P.S. - Muffasil, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2024 Heard Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 74 of 2023 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 49 of 2021, FIR dated 27.01.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.07.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28582 of 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to admitted land dispute
2/4 between the parties. He further submits that the other accused person, namely, Sanjay Ray @ Sanjay Kumar Ray has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench this Court vide order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72169 of 2022 and the coaccused person, namely, Pawan Ray @ Pawan Kumar Ray has also been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42530 of 2021.
5. Vide order dated 27.03.2024, a report with regard to the present status of the trial was called for. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 26.04.2024 reveals that out of ten charge-sheet witnesses, prosecution has not examined any witness any yet.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the report of the learned trial Court that there is no chance of early conclusion of the trial in near future and the petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2022.
7. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner has clean antecedent, due to admitted land dispute the present occurrence has taken place, other co-
3/4 accused persons have already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the report of the learned trial Court, let the, above named, petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Samastipur in connection with S.T. No. 74 of 2023 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 49 of 2021 with the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
(ii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
And, further condition that 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 step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
4/4 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) ajay/- U T