Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22805 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2024 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Narayan yadav @ Ram Bahadur yadav Resident of Village -Trimuhani Ward No.13, Police StationBahera, District -Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 382 of 2024, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351 (2), 352, 132, 121 (1), 121(2), 74, 109, 125(b), 191(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per F.I.R. the prosecution case in brief is that on 06.10.2024, the informant who is posted as Sub-Inspector, Excise, Darbhanga and she got an information that one Ranjeet Yadav @ Chhanu Yadav is engaged in business of illegal liquor. On this information, the informant constituted a raiding party including the police officials and reached near Pirmuhani Chowk. Thereafter, informant sent private vehicle driver Sikandar Kumar to the house of Ranjit Yadav @ Channu Yadav to verify the fact. The said driver demanded one petty wine for which accused Ranjit Yadav @
2/4 Channu Yadav demanded Rs. 10,600/-. Thereafter, the Excise Constable, Chandan Kumar Singh sent Rs. 10,600/- on the QR Code of Ranjitt Yadav @ Channu Yadav. Both constables called the informant along with raiding party upon which information, the raiding party reached at the house of Ranjeet Yadav @ Channu Yadav. Seeing the raiding party, a person standing near the motorcycle tried to flee away but he was over powered by the raiding party. Both Constables is stated to have told that the apprehended person gave liquor to them. On query, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Ranjit yadav @ Channu Yadav. The raiding party said to him to return the money taken by him and thereafter Ranjeet Yadav @ Channu Yadav was taken into custody by the raiding party but he tried to flee away from there and then hankie was put on his hand.
It is further alleged that that 30-35 persons assembled there but nobody was ready to witness to seizure list and 7-8 became aggressive in crowed and tries to set free Ranjeet Yadav @ Channu Yadav from the custody. One person also snatched mobile from the Excise Constable, Pooja Kumari, who was recording the occurrence and misbehaved with her. It is also alleged in the F.I.R.
3/4 Danda and bamboo due to which Constable, Chandar Kumar Singh, became injured and blood started oozing up and he also sustained injury on left shoulder and on abdominal. Other Excise Constable are also alleged to have became injured. It is further alleged that the accused person succeeding in taking away the main accused, Ranjeet Yadav @ Channu Yadav from police custody and while fleeing away, the blue colour techno mobile of Ranjeet Yadav @ Channu Ydav was fallen on the ground. The Constable, Chandan Kumar is said to have returned the money back to the account of Ranjeet Yadav @ Channu Ydav.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner further submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of influential person of the society. The entire allegation levelled against the petitioner, as per him is false, concocted and baseless. The petitioner also submits that he was a member of the mob and his name has been dragged simply because he was captured in the video which was taken in the said occurrence. The petitioner further contends that nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that there is no specific allegation against him. He has simply been implicated because he was a member of the crowed present at that point of
4/4 time.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. also the fact that he was a member of the mob, this Court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, named above, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipur, Darbhanga, in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 382 of 2024, subject to the condition laid down under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U T