Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26619 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2021 Thana- SIWAIPATTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar, son of Chaturbhuj Prasad, R/O Village- Tengrari, P.S.- Siwaipatti, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. M. K. Nirala, APP For the Informant : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-09-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from today.
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as M. K. Nirala, learned APP for the State. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 42 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant came to know from the petitioner that co-accused Subodh Kaushik, who is brother in law (Dewar) of Pramukh,
2/4 had been providing job of Teacher after preparing a forged certificate of Teachers Eligibility Test and on the assurance of providing employment, the informant has given Rs.4 lakh to the co-accused Subodh Kaushik through the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the F.I.R. it is evident that save and except the allegation that the petitioner introduced the informant to the co-accused Subodh Kaushik and persuaded him to pay Rs.4 lakh to the said coaccused, there is no other material against the petitioner. He further submits that it is admitted that the informant has tried to obtain employment on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate of Teachers Eligibility Test and, as such, he himself was responsible for the wrong. He next submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.
2022 and moreover the investigation of the crime is already completed and the chargesheet has been submitted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is facing two other criminal cases.
3/4 and, moreover, the informant is also responsible for the wrongful act of getting employment through wrongful means. This Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 42 of 2021, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relative of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) 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
4/4 court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T