Ramesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33929 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2025 Thana- LAUHIYANAGAR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Ramesh Kumar S/O Ranjeet Mahto @ Ranjeet Maht Mahto R/O VillageBirpur, P.S- Birpur, Distt.- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate : Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 28.11.2025 in connection with Lohiyanagar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 14.07.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith others fired upon the deceased and other person due to which informant's husband died and other person sustained injury.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

2/4 submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons have fired upon the deceased and one Prince Kumar and deceased has died on the spot and Prince Kumar has received the injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during course of investigation the police has recorded the statement of Prince Kumar which was recorded in paragraph-119 of the case diary in which he has not stated anything about the petitoner and co-accused person, namely, Alok Kumar and Rahul Kumar, against whom the similar allegation, have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.90261 of 2025 and co-accused person, namely, Shubham Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.12748 of 2026 and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question and a number of witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, apart from that, the petitioner carries one more case other than the present

3/4 one but he fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in the said case, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact, injured person has not taken the name of the petitioner and similarly situated coaccused persons have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court or by this Court, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Lohiyanagar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025, with the following conditions:- (I) 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) 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.

(III) 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

4/4 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail 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) Nitesh/- U T