Ravi Ranjan @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Rana Kumar @ Tunni Singh @ Tunni @ Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27766 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2013 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Rana Kumar @ Tunni Singh @ Tunni @ Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar Son of Vishwanath Singh Singh @ Rana Kumar Ravi, At present residing of 204, Vashundhara Apartment, Sheikhpura More, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ansul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner has earlier moved before this Court with a prayer for anticipatory bail which was allowed vide order dated 27.06.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18105 of 2014 but, the petitioner could not surrender and furnish the bail bond within stipulated time frame.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 56 of 2013 instituted for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506,
2/4 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43, 65, 66, 73 of the I.T. Act.
4. As per prosecution case, the petitioner allegedly misused the complainant's digital signature and created multiple fake companies under fraud to cheat common people as well as businessman.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner was only the sleeping Director of the Broadcast Infratel Indian Pvt. Ltd. and there is no evidence that any illegal gratification was paid to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner, being the Director of the Broadcast Infratel Indian Pvt. Ltd. had prepared his digital signature. The petitioner has retired from the Company on 26.02.2010 and has nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has five criminal antecedents and is languishing in judicial custody since 03.01.2025 without any rhymes or reason. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
3/4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner again submits that the co-accused namely Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3365 of 2014.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
8. Having heard rival contention of both the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 56 of 2013, subject to the following conditions;
(i) One of the bailor(s) shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and
4/4 shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the court below.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T