Ranjit Kumar @ Sri Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72862 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-531 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar @ Sri Ranjit Kumar S/O Late Gaya Singh Resident of MohallaStation Road in the North east of Sidarth Guest House, P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that Rajesh applied for obtaining certified copy of a registered Document No.11352, Jild No.98, Page No.598 to 601, further after perusal of the certified copy, it transpired that Page No.598 was tinkered with along with Page No.597, further on perusal of Jild No.98, it transpired that the same was pasted after removing Jild of some other year, further to verify the same, Jild No.98 of 1971 was perused and it was found that Page No.431-442

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72862 of 2025(2) dt.12-11-2025 2/2 was missing, as such, 12 pages of Jild No.98 of the year 1971 was found missing, further Page No.59 to 64 of the registered Document No.11352, Jild No.134 of the year 1971 was also found missing, it is next alleged that the certified copy of the aforesaid document was obtained on 04.03.2025 by Ranjeet Kumar, thus alleges that Ranjeet committed the occurrence.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner after arguing vehemently for sometime realizing his difficulty seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail.

5. Permission, as prayed for, is accorded.

6. This anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.

7. It is made clear that if petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail, the learned Trial Court shall consider the case on its own merit without being prejudiced by the fact that petitioner before this Court had withdrawn the anticipatory bail application. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T