Ranjan Rai @ Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33536 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2020 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ranjan Rai @ Ranjan Kumar Son Of Late Brij Kishore Ray Resident Of Village - Kathariya, P.S.- Lakhaura, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dhurendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-09-2022 Heard Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner, who is in custody since 28.09.2021, seeks regular bail in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 284 of 2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the I.P.C. and Section 25(1-b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
As per the allegation made in the FIR, after receiving secret information police had conducted raid near motor chowk in Suresh Yadav's house where the accused persons named in FIR including the present petitioner were present along with
2/4 arms and looted articles.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the eight accused persons including the present petitioner were apprehended on spot and three miscreants managed to escape. He further submitted that due to enmity with the persons who were apprehended on the spot, petitioner has been made accused in the present case. No recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Other similarly situated co-accused persons namely, Dharamlal Rai and Jamaluddin Ansari have already been released on bail vide order dated 14.06.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10839 of 2021 and vide order dated 21.05.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10566 of 2021 respectively by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Petitioner is in custody since 28.09.2021. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. however, he had managed to flee away from the place of occurrence later on petitioner was apprehended, no recovery of arms has been made from his possession, other similarly situated co-accused persons namely, Dharamlal Rai and
3/4 Jamaluddin Ansari have already been released on bail vide order dated 14.06.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10839 of 2021 and vide order dated 21.05.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10566 of 2021 respectively by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, let the petitioner above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Raxaul, Motihari in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 284 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:-
(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.
(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court.
(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(4) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence, after his release on bail, the trial Court shall take steps to cancel his bail bonds.
(5) The Court below is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in paragraph
4/4 no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will loose its force automatically. (Purnendu Singh, J) minu/- U T