Ravi Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54267 of 2019 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22179 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2018 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

RAVI RANJAN KUMAR S/o Mukesh Kumar Singh Resident of Ram Nagari More, Srinath Nagar Asheyana, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, District- Patna 2.

Sanjay Kumar S/o Hari Prasad Resident of North Patel Nagar Road No. 5, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District and Town- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Rahul Kumar S/o Mahendra Prasad Singh R/o village- Rupaspur Sahay Nagar, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned counsel appearing on behalf of State.

By way of the present modification application, the petitioner seeks to modify the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22179 of 2019 by which, the application for anticipatory bail was disposed of with direction to the petitioners to surrender in the court below within a period of six weeks along with a bank draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable in the name of Rahul Kumar and a bank draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of Santosh Kumar and once the same is deposited, they will be enlarged on provisional bail for a period of four months. During that period,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54267 of 2019(2) dt.28-08-2019 2/2 they will pay the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- in four equal installments to Rahul Kumar by bank draft and amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to Santosh Kumar within a period of four months in four equal installments. Once the total amount is paid, their bail bonds shall be confirmed.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no case that petitioner no. 1 has taken any money and, therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioner no. 1 to return the money, however, in the order dated 05.07.2019, petitioner no. 1 has also been directed to make paymen and thus prayed for modification of the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22179 of 2019 and for extension of time.

Considering the fact that the order has been passed in presence of the parties and, therefore, I am not inclined to modify the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22179 of 2019.

This modification application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T