Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Bind @ Ranjan Kumar Bind v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26045 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2021 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Bind @ Ranjan Kumar Bind Son of Rambilash Bind @ Ram Vilas Jamadar R/O Village - Lalu Bigha, P.S.- Bind, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh. APP For the Informant :
Mr. Vikas Moha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2025, arising out of Magadh Medical College P.S. Case No.211 of 2021 dated 10.08.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the son of the informant was working as a labourer in Jio Wi-Fi company and there was outstanding dues of Rs. 2 lac of co-accused/Mithilesh Singh against the deceased/Mukesh Bind. Later on, the petitioner and his associates assaulted the son of the informant
2/4 with scissors and knife due to which he died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. She further submits that the informant is not an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and name of the petitioner has been given in the FIR as per hearsay from the co-laborers. She further submits that as per the FIR, Dharmendra Kumar is the main assailant and as per some hearsay from co-laborers, the petitioner was also involved in the commission of the offence. She further submits that the petitioner has no motive at all to commit the offence. She also refers to the confessional statement of co-accused/Dharmendra Kumar as per which he has committed the offence by assaulting the deceased by scissors on his neck and he has not named the petitioner as an assailant. No role at all has been alleged by the coaccused/Dharmendra Kumar against the petitioner and he has made confessional statement implicating himself.
5. She further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.09.2023 i.e. for about 2 years and one month. She further submits that as per the report received from the Trial Court, five witnesses are still to be examined and as per estimation of learned Trial Court, at least further nine months
3/4 will be taken to conclude the Trial. Hence, she submits that in view of fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, it would be travesty of justice to keep the petitioner in jail without conclusion of the Trial.
6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
7. However, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that as per the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer in the case diary, the petitioner has also played an active role in commission of the offence.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the period of custody and stage of the trial, this application is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge Xth, Gaya, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2025, arising out of Magadh Medical College P.S. Case No.211 of 2021 on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required.
4/4 (ii) The petitioner will undertake that investigation/trial will not get hampered on account of his absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police or the court whenever his presence is required. (iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.
(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Jitendra Kumar, J) shoaib/- U T