Rewati Raman Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62027 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rewati Raman Rai S/o Late Ram Baran Rai R/o Village- Lal Pokhar Dighi, P.S.- Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-09-2025 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in paragraph no. 1 of the bail application during course of the day.
3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 398 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 18.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. According to prosecution case, all the accused persons including this petitioner assaulted the informant on nonfulfillment of demand of ransom of Rs. 20 thousand.
2/4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R but it appears from the F.I.R that the informant has mentioned three dates of occurrence but for the first two dates he has not lodged any complaint before the police and when the third occurrence took place then he had filed the present F.I.R. From perusal of the F.I.R it appears that the specific allegation of assault or overt act is attributed against the co-accused, namely, Sanjeet Kumar and there is no allegation against the petitioner either with respect to demand of ransom or any assault and the injury found on the injured person is simple in nature.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and apart from that the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in both the cases.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather is same is against the co-accused Sanjeet Kumar and the injury of the injured person is simple in nature, let the petitioner, above
3/4 named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 398 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T