Ram Ranjan Kumar v. The Union Of India Through C.B.I. Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23310 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2017 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna ====================================================== Ram Ranjan Kumar (Male), age about 39 years, S/o Late Shyamdeo Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Bansh Kothi street (Gate), No.93, P.S.- Digha, P.O.- Digha Gate, Distt- Patna State- Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union of India through C.B.I. Patna Bihar 2.
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
For the CBI :
Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.
In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with C.B.I./SCB P.S. Case No. RC- 0922017S0002 of 2017 registered for offences under sections 120(B)/419/ 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
This case has been generated on account of the fact that one Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Sonar was made accused in Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 195 of 2014 in which he surrendered before the court below for judicial custody but, later on, it transpired that in place of Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Sonar, another person, namely, Vicky Kumar son of Kundan Dom
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2020(4) dt.15-12-2020 2/2 impersonated him and he went to jail. Thereafter, this conspiracy came into light and investigation started by the C.B.I. and it transpired that the present petitioner, who is the advocate clerk, has identified Kanhaiya Kumar, the deponent of the affidavit filed in the I.A. petition. During investigation, the petitioner was found involved in impersonation of Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Sonar.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the petitioner Ram Ranjan Kumar and Pappu Ranjan are the same person whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are not the same person rather are two different persons and their signatures have also been sent to the forensic examination but, the report has not been received as yet. Looking to the facts collected by the C.B.I., this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected for the present.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T