Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29975 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- KUTUMBA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Baitha S/o Rameshwar Baitha R/o VillageBedauliya, P.S.- Kutumba, District- Aurangabad 2.

Rahul Kumar S/o Rameshwar Baitha R/o Village- Bedauliya, P.S.- Kutumba, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv Mr.Rakesh Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP Mr. Aman Vishal, Advocate Ms. Leelawati Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 1.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2.

The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are in custody since 18-1-2025. It is next submitted that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased had approached this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 29207 of 2025 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29975 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/3 the same was allowed by an order dated 6-8-2025. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners is on similar footing, but then, as far as case of Rahul (petitioner No. 2) is concerned, he is alleged to have entered the house of the informant from the rooftop and thereafter opened the door and the occurrence thereafter is alleged to have taken place, but then as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the allegation against him is also general and omnibus in nature.

4.

The learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail application. 5.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner No. 1, Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Kutumba P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025.

6.

However, the Court, for the present, is not inclined to release the petitioner No. 2 (Rahul Kumar) on bail. 7.

It is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner No. 1 after his release is trying to delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29975 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 3/3 shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner No. 1.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application is partly allowed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T