Ranjan Singh @ Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64979 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2024 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== Masudan Singh S/O Viswanath Singh R/O Village- Janardanpur, P.S- Fatuha, Distt- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68770 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2024 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjan Singh @ Ranjan Kumar Son of Amin Singh R/o -Janardanpur, PSFatuha, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 64979 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Diwakar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shantanu Kumar (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68770 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Diwakar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2025 Cr. Misc. No.64979 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fatuha P. S. Case No.191 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
2/5 under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 23.04.2024 and charge sheet has been submitted and from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that allegation of assaulting the deceased by an iron rod is against Ranjit Kumar. It is further submitted that allegation of assault against this petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that though a case has been instituted under the Arms Act but no one was injured, which amply demonstrates that the case was instituted under the Arms Act only to give seriousness to the case. It is next submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail, who is a person with clean antecedent.
4. The learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposes the bail application of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the informant submits that from perusal of the postmortem report, it would manifest that the deceased also had four external injuries including the injury on head, which amply demonstrates that the deceased was assaulted by the
3/5 accused persons, on which, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt there are four injuries mentioned in the postmortem report but then three injuries are in nature of abrasion.
5. Be that as it may, considering the submissions, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Fatuha P. S. Case No.191 of 2024.
6. However, if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to delay the trial in any manner, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. Cr. Misc. No.68770 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fatuha P. S. Case No.191 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4/5
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 06.05.2024 and charge sheet has been submitted and from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that allegation of assaulting the deceased by an iron rod is against Ranjit Kumar. It is further submitted that allegation of assault against this petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that though a case has been instituted under the Arms Act but no one was injured, which amply demonstrates that the case was instituted under the Arms Act only to give seriousness to the case. It is next submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail, who is a person with clean antecedent.
4. The learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposes the bail application of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the informant submits that from perusal of the postmortem report, it would manifest that the deceased also had four external injuries including the injury on head, which amply demonstrates that the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons, on which, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt there are four injuries mentioned in the
5/5 postmortem report but then three injuries are in nature of abrasion.
5. Be that as it may, considering the submissions, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Fatuha P. S. Case No.191 of 2024.
6. However, if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to delay the trial in any manner, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T