Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51483 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- DEWARIA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Raushan Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Sah Resident of village - Hardi, P.S.- Kathaiya, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Deoriya P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025 registered for the alleged offences under Section 309(5) of B.N.S.
3. As per prosecution case, two miscreants threatened the informant, Branch Manager of IIFL Finance at a gun point and demanded money. When the police was called by dialing 112, the miscreants fled away from the branch of the informant. The name of the petitioner transpired during investigation for being one of the persons involved in the said occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
2/4 case. The petitioner has been made accused in this case due to highhandedness of the police. The petitioner was apprehended by the police merely on suspicion during vehicle checking and the same day, the present informant was called and FIR was lodged against the petitioner. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained as the occurrence is stated to be of 25.03.2025 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 29.03.2025 only when the petitioner was apprehended in connection with Deoriya P.S. Case No. 64 of 2025. The extra judicial confession of the petitioner was recorded by the police for making him accused in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the informant stated about CCTV being installed in his branch, but police did not collect CCTV footage of the occurrence to identify the petitioner as one of the miscreants.
The petitioner was not even put to any Test Identification Parade though the informant and his employee claimed that they could identify the miscreant. The petitioner is in custody in the present case since 03.06.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted. Learned counsel further submits that prior to 29.03.2025 the petitioner was not having any antecedent but thereafter, he has been made accused in two cases and he has been granted bail in both the cases.
3/4
5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the vague and doubtful nature of allegation against the petitioner and further considering the period of custody of the custody and submission of charge sheet, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. 5th (West), Muzaffarpur/concerned Court in connection with Deoriya P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 480(3) of B.N.S.S. and also the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
4/4 petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T