Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47016/2025allowed

Ranjan Singh @ Ranjan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-24Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 47016 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2024 Thana- HATHUA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Ranjan Singh @ Ranjan Kumar Singh Son of Ajay Singh Resident of Village - Sohagpur, P.S.- Hathua, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhav Raj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Hathua P.S Case No. 220 of 2024 whereby the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled and accordingly non-bailable warrant was issued on the ground that he had failed to disclose one criminal antecedent i.e., Bhore P.S. Case No. 48 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently one of the criminal antecedents bearing Bhore P.S. Case No. 48 of 2015 was not disclosed in the list of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which was stated in the paragraph 3 of the bail petition.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 47016 of 2025(2) dt.24-07-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to suppress the same as he had already disclosed 10 criminal antecedents in the case, and it was on account of some confusion that the said criminal antecedent had been compromised and the Bhore P.S. Case No. 48 of 2015 could not be stated in the paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of such inadvertence, the mistake was committed and he also tendered an unconditional apology to the Court.

6. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the said criminal antecedent.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the fact that the petitioner had disclosed the 10 criminal antecedents and on account of some inadvertence, the 11th criminal case pending against him was not disclosed, this application is allowed.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Hathua P.S. Case No. 220 of 2024 is hereby quashed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 47016 of 2025(2) dt.24-07-2025 3/3

9. The learned Court below is directed to accept the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Jyoti/- U T