Ranjan Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48251 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2024 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ranjan Ray S/o- Arjun Ray Village- Dakshini Dumri P.S- Mohanpur DistrictSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2024, registered under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the informant was intercepted by three unknown miscreants. The miscreants looted Rs. 4,20,000/- from the informant on gun point and fled away from the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused, namely, Yashwant Ray and the same has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48251 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 got no evidentiary value. The petitioner has got two criminal antecedents in which he is on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated co-accused has been granted regular bail by Court vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 78962 of 2024.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that coaccused person has confessed the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner bears two criminal antecedents and hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, criminal antecedents, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T