Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27917 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2026 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar S/o- Rishi Kumar Mishra Resident of Village- Silaut Ward No 13 PS- Maniyari Dist-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar For the Informant :
Mr. Vinod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2026 Heard Mr. Shashank Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 21.01.2026 in connection with Sakra P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) of BNS, subsequently the offences were converted into Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.01.2026 at about 10:00 P.M. his son Manish Raj went to Markan Chowk for procuring medicine, his Mobile Number is 7462827581. Further, despite looking for his son, the informant
2/4 is not able to trace him, as such she apprehends that his son has been abducted as earlier his brother-in-law Chandralok Prasad was also abducted in the year 2003, whose whereabouts till date remains unknown. Further, the informant also apprehends that some untoward incident may happen to her son. Accordingly, the First Information Report came to be instituted and the police took up investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent. It is next submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of secret information which was recorded in paragraph-19 of the case diary. Thereafter, coaccused persons, namely, Durgesh Kumar and Kanhai Thakur have confessed their guilt in the present occurrence which is recorded in paragraph 48 and 49 of the case diary in which they have clearly stated that they have assaulted to the deceased by means of Coco-Cola bottle and he has died at the spot and thereafter co-accused persons, namely, Durgesh Kumar, Kanhai Thakur and Pankaj Chaudhary have disposed of the dead body at the railway track and they have not stated anything about the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Annexure-P/2 series which shows that at the time of occurrence
3/4 the petitioner was at his shop and police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that from bare perusal of the statement of co-accused persons, namely Durgesh Kumar and Kanhai Thakur which suggests that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but fairly submit that coaccused persons have not stated anything about the petitioner that he has participated in the present crime in question.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, 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 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate XV, Muzaffarpur East, District-Muzaffarpur in connection with Sakra P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, subject to 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
4/4 reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled 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.
iii. 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 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) Gaurav Sinha/- U T