Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63600/2019rejected

Rajesh Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-22Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63600 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2019 Thana- DEWARIA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAJESH RANJAN Son of Shatrughan Ray @ Shatrughan Roy @ Satrughan Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Bakhari, P.S.- Minapur (Panapur O.P.), Distt - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Deoria P.S. Case No. 92 of 2019/G.R. No. 2264 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 452, 40/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner is a business man and he went to collection of money from the market and while he was returning, he has been inspected by the police and on non-fulfillment of the illegal demand of the police, he has been arrested. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63600 of 2019(2) dt.22-10-2019 2/2 possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.07.2019 without fault. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.

Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is a member of ATM fraud gang and he was caught red handed by the police while he along with his associate was tempering with the A.T.M. Moreover, huge quantity of ATM/Debit cards have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner along with his associates.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail of this petitioner is rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T