Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69111 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2019 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== RANJIT KUMAR @ RANJIT RAI Son of Rajeshwar Rai Resident of Village- Mahua Singhrai, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 31-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 302, 201/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.05.2019 the informant's son, namely, Sushil Kumar left the house with one Nagmani to attend marriage feast by motorcycle but he did not return. The informant suspected that his son was done to death by the accused persons.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69111 of 2021(2) dt.31-03-2022 2/2 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is a case of last seen with the co-accused Nagmani, with whom the deceased had gone to attend the marriage feast. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. His name has transpired in this case in course of investigation merely on the basis of suspicion. Except for suspicion, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the complaint case/F.I.R.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in connection with Mahua P.S. case No.292/2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T