Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35468 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Yadav S/o Bechan Yadav Resident of Village Malhipur, PS. Hasanpur Distt. Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amit Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 401, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8(C), 21(B), 21(C), 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
3.
Prosecution allegation, in short, is that there is recovery of 13 gram brown sugar, one country made pistol, mobile phone and cash have been recovered from the possession of co-accused persons.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35468 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 2/3 present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested at the place of occurrence. Name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co- accused persons, namely, Stayam Kumar and Kanhaiya Kumar and the same has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is also submitted that the petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of brown sugar and arms. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2024 and has got seven criminal antecedents.
There is no compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated co-accused has been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 02.05.2025 and 17.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 24230 of 2025 & 36283 of 2025 respectively.
5.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no recovery from the petitioner, the recovered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35468 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 3/3 contraband being below the commercial quantity, the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and claim based on parity, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.
Let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail, after framing of charge if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024, subject to the following conditions; (i) One of the bailor(s) shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate 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 in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T