Ranjeet Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57308 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2020 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Ranjeet Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Ram Son of Jagat Narayan Ram Resident of Village- Parsarma Ward No. 6, P.S.- Raghopur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to prosecution case, the informant has given a written report to the officer-in-charge stating therein that on the even date and time of the occurrence the informant was posted on the post of field officer and was running in the house of Bablu Das sitated at Simrahi and on the alleged date collected

2/4 1,54,900/- from the seven centre and when the informant got ahead about 1.5 kilometer from the last center which was situated at Tilabe Dhar and at time two persons were surrounded the informant and one person snatched the key of the motorcycle and second persons bearing of Helmet caught him and snatched the bag which was hang in the pith and fled away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he is not named in the F.I.R. and he has falsely been implicated in the present case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused namely, Randhir Kumar and Sone Lal Yadav @ Sonu Yadav and self confessional statement of the petitioner. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and till date no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution.

He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Md. Rais @ Md. Rahis has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 62881 of 2021 and another co-accused namely, Sone Lal Yadav @ Sonu Kumar has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 60768 of 2021. The petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2021.

3/4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that petitioner carries four criminal antecedents other than the present one.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 53 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:-

1. 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. 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.

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the

4/4 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 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) mdrashid/- U T