Ameet Kumar @ Rajiv Ranjan @ Munna @ Pappu @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 23556 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== AMEET KUMAR @ RAJIV RANJAN @ MUNNA @ PAPPU @ RAJIV RANJAN KUMAR S/O Ram Hari Prasad Resident of Village - Saidpur, P.S. - Barh, District - Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Ravi Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Shyam Kr Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-09-2020 As of now, the Courts have not resumed normal physical hearing. The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual Court proceedings with the aid of audio visual technology.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Samastipur Town Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 4 of 2018 dated 04.01.2018 instituted for the offence punishable under Section (s) 392, 395, 412 of Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23556 of 2020(2) dt.16-09-2020 2/3 Allegation is that three persons have entered into the Bank and looted cash amounting to Rs 48,94,325/- from the Strong Room.

Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2018. Subsequent upon his implication in the instant case, the petitioner has also been implicated in other cases, as per details in paragraph 3 of the application. Prior to this case, there was only one implication of the petitioner in Pandarak PS Case No 88 of 1995. The petitioner's specific assertion is that he has not been put on Test Identification Parade. Recovery of Rs 7,40,000/- from the petitioner is part of the consideration amounts of lands sold by the petitioner's wife as per sale deed (Annexure 2). He claims parity in the matter of grant of bail with other co-accused, namely, Raushan Kumar Singh @ Sadhu, Shivam Kumar @ Babul, Dheeraj Kumar Jha @ Dheeraj Jha and Sujeet Kumar @ Nilesh Kur Jha @ Nilesh Kumar, who have been allowed bail by different Benches of this Court in Cr Misc No 42207 of 2019, Cr Misc No 64375 of 2018, Cr Misc No 85368 of 2019 and Cr Misc No 21011 of 2020 respectively.

The learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23556 of 2020(2) dt.16-09-2020 3/3 Considering the rival submissions, prayer for bail is allowed. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge III, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No 267 of 2018 arising out of Samastipur Town PS Case No 4 of 2018 subject to the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will also undertake to inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant proceedings today for depositing requisite Court fee and removing the defect (s), as pointed out, when called upon to do so.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T