Ranjay Onkar Singh @ Ranjay Onkar @ Kumar Ranjay Onkar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52366 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2023 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Ranjay Onkar Singh @ Ranjay Onkar @ Kumar Ranjay Onkar Son of Vijay Kumar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Majhaul, P.s.- Cheriya Bariyarpur, Dist.- Begusarai, At Present R/at C/O Devendra Tiwary Bela, P.N.T. Road, P.s.- Bela, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 10-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 379, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, the husband of the informant was a land broker and a social worker for the past fifteen years. During the course of his business, some people used to extort money from the informant's husband but he refused to pay any extortion money. The informant stated that Vijendra Kumar, a neighbour of the informant wanted to purchase a piece of land when the co-accused Govind Kumar, Rananjay Omkar Singh and Mantu Sharma, came to Vijendra Singh's house and demanded a ransom of Rs. 50 lakhs. Vijendra Singh filed a complaint with the police regarding the same and
2/4 the informant's husband was a witness in the said occurrence. It is further alleged that the above accused along with Vikrant Kr Shukla, and Sheru Ahmed tried to forcibly purchase a piece of land from the informant's husband at a relatively lower price than the rate at which the informant's husband had purchased. On 21.07.2023 the informant's husband received a number of calls on his mobile phone. He left his home with three personal guards in his Scorpio vehicle and that night at 11.30 PM the informant got a call informing her that her husband was killed after being shot by the accused. The three guards were also shot and two of them died after being taken to the hospital. The informant further alleges that one of the co-conspirator Wakil Kasim Hussain had called the informant's husband to his home with an intention to murder the informant's husband and there was a pre-meditated plan to murder her husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against them and nothing specific allegation has been alleged against the petitioner. He next submits that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence even the informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. He next submits that similarly situated
3/4 co-accused persons have already been granted bail by a Coordinate Benches of this Court as well as this Court. He next submits that co-accused Govind Kumar @ Govind Chaudhary has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32137 of 2024. Co-accused Vikrant Kumar Shukla @ Vikku Shukla has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 79072 of 2023. Co-accused Sheru Ahmad has been granted regular by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11806 of 2024. Co-accused Mantu Sharma has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18231 of 2024. Petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the first information report, case diary, postmortem report and impugned order dated 02.07.2024, it appears that the petitioner is named in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion and his name surfaced in the case diary from the confessional statement of co-accused and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, so I am inclined to grant bail
4/4 to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, let the above named petitioner 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 learned 20th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 614 of 2023, Sessions Trial No. 433 of 2024.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T