Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53488 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-723 Year-2020 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Son Of Babunand Yadav @ Late Babulal Yadav @ Baua Yadav Resident Of Village- Unta Madarpur, P.S- And Dist- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kunwar Digvijay Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-08-2022 Let the defects, if any, be removed within four weeks from today.
Heard Mr. Kunwar Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 723 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 385, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the petitioner came to the house of the informant and demanded ransom and when the husband of the informant raised an
2/4 alarm, the petitioner opened fire and fled away. It is further alleged that the petitioner earlier also came with 10-12 criminals about two months ago and demanded Rs. 1 lac as Rangadari and threatened her to dire consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the FIR, it is evident that neither the ransom or extortion money has been transferred to the petitioner nor any injury has been caused to anyone. It is next submitted that in fact, on account of some altercation which took place between the petitioner and the informant, this present case has been instituted with a view to pressurize him It is next submitted that though it is alleged that before two months of the alleged occurrence, Rangadari was demanded, no FIR or any complaint was instituted with regard to the earlier occurrence. It is next submitted that this petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2021.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender, who is indulged in such type of crime from earlier. It is also alleged that there is specific allegation made against the petitioner for demand of
3/4 Rangadari and further in order to create terror, he also made firing and he has found involved in three other cases. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that neither the extortion money has been transferred nor any injury has been caused to anyone and the petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2021, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Jehanabad P.S.Case No.
723 of 2020 subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will mark his attendance in the first week of every succeeding month till one year from the date of his release in the local police station and in future if petitioner shall found involve in similar type of cases, the court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of his bail. (ii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.
4/4 (iii) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(iv) 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 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancelling 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. (Harish Kumar, J) N.K/- U T