← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74128/2025allowed

Ranjay Mahto @ Ranjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-07Mr. Justice Harish Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74128 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-655 Year-2023 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ranjay Mahto @ Ranjay Kumar S/O Upendra Mahto R/O- Sarhad Madho, P.S- Patori, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-11-2025 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection Patori P.S. Case No. 655 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 88918 of 2024 after taking into consideration the identification of the petitioner on the basis of CCTV footage by the employees of the Bank as well as his criminal antecedent.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused Anurodh Kumar @ Anrudh Kumar @ Anurudh Kumar, who has been accorded privilege of bail by

2/4 this Court along with Manish Kumar Meghnath @ Manish Kumar @ Meghnath in Cr. Misc. No. 58082 of 2025 along with Cr. Misc. No. 30691 of 2025 vide order dated 22.08.2025. It is further contended that the identification of the petitioenr does not appear to be trustworthy on the face of the prosecution case as it is alleged that the miscreants were masked their faces; all the more offence in question is triable by the Magistrate and taking note of these facts, co-accused persons having similar allegation have been allowed the privilege of regular bail. It is specifically contended that the case of the petitioner also stands on similar footing as that of other co-accused persons, who have been granted bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner was found indulged in committing Bank dacoity and later on he was identified through CCTV footage by the employees of the Bank, besides six criminal antecedents.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that co-accused persons having identical allegation have been allowed the privilege of regular bail by this Court and now the petitioner has been incarcerated for over a period of one

3/4 year and eleven months and he undertakes before this Court that he will fully cooperate in the trial, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Patori P.S. Case No. 655 of 2023, subject to the condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.

(v) 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 immediate step for cancelling the bail

4/4 bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T