Ranveer Kumar @ Ranvir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51043 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2025 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Ranveer Kumar @ Ranvir Kumar S/O Sri Bhagat Lal Mahto R/O VillageUda Purab Tola (Puwari Tola), Ward No. 03, P.S.- Udakishunganj, DistrictMadhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506, 376, 354(B), 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 7-2-2025 and the informant alleges that accused persons including the petitioner on 14.04.2024 at 10:00 p.m. entered her house while she was sleeping with her children; and petitioner closed her mouth and molested her and also assaulted with butt of gun, thereafter petitioner committed rape and the accused snatched her ornaments and Rs.50,000/- and fled away, further the FIR could not be instituted on time as her husband was not present in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51043 of 2025(3) dt.19-09-2025 2/3 house.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the occurrence is alleged to have been committed at village Uda, where informant was staying with her parents. It is further submitted that date of occurrence is 14-4-2024 and her husband, who was working in Punjab, came back on 17-4-2024, i.e.

, three days after the occurrence, but then in these three days, the informant did not disclose about the occurrence either to her parents or neighbours nor disclosed to her husband when he came back, as from perusal of para-4 of the case diary, it would manifest that statement of the husband of the informant is recorded, where he has stated that he came back from Punjab on 17-4-2024, thereafter he along with the informant and children left for their matrimonial home at village Madhuban. It is submitted that the FIR came to be instituted on 19-1-2025, when the date of occurrence is 14-4-2024, i.e., after more than nine months of the occurrence, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51043 of 2025(3) dt.19-09-2025 3/3 the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 25 of 2025.

7.

However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is delaying the trial in any manner, in both the conditions the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T