Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52989 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-747 Year-2024 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Son of Balidra Rai village - Naya Tola Mungouli, P. S - Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sonpur P.S. Case No-747 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111 and 309(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per allegation, three unknown persons robbed the informant on his pick up van bearing registration no. BR01GN-2534.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that he is not involved in organized crime because he has no criminal antecedent. Hence, Section 111 is not applicable. However, he admits that the pick up van which has been allegedly robbed of has been recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and on the basis of that recovery, one separate case i.e Vaishali P.S. Case No. 369 of 2024 has been registered on 13.09.2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52989 of 2025(2) dt.11-08-2025 2/2

5. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 28.01.2025

6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has been made accused in one other case.

7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.

8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the alleged offence is serious in nature having severe punishment including even death and also under Section 309, the offence is punishable up to ten years of imprisonment and there is sufficient material in support of the allegation under Section 309.

9. Considering the allegation and nature of the material in support of the allegation, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. The petition is dismissed, accordingly.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.) Chandan/- U T