← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28886/2023bail granted

Bandhan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-05-25Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28886 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2021 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Bandhan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar S/O Janardhan Yadav Resident of VillageItahara, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 20.06.2022 in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 131 of 2021, F.I.R. dated 03.06.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to prosecution case, the petitioner was working as Manager of Baba Singheshwar Fuel Centre and while he was on duty three persons on motorcycle came from the side of Pipra and took Rs. 1,64,952/- from Rohit Kumar on gun point and fled away. The faces of all the accused persons

2/4 were covered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the previous criminal history and thereafter, his self confessional statement was recorded by the police. He further submtis that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and till date no T.I.P. has been conducted by the prosecution. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. He further submits that similarly situated, coaccused, namely, Raushan Kumar has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54341 of 2022 and another co-accused, namely, Ashish Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 67571 of 2022. The petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2022.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries ten criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in

3/4 all the cases.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 131 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:-

1. 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 reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. 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.

3. 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

4/4 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) Vanisha/- U T