Ram Kumar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.55977 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2018 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna ======================================================
1. Ram Kumar Singh, S/o Late Binda Prasad Singh,
2. Ranju Devi @ Ranju Singh W/o Ram Kumar Singh, Both R/o Vill.- Rohua Raja Ram, P.S.- Mushari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kunwar Ajit Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417/418/419/420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The informant and her husband are advocates of the Patna High Court. Co-accused Sudhanshu Ranjan, who is son of the petitioners, was client of the informant as he was accused in connection with Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No.68 of 2017. During relationship of advocate and client Sudhanshu Ranjan came into the contact with the bank papers of the informant and allegedly committed cyber crime and got transferred money on different dates from the bank account of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55977 of 2018(4) dt.30-11-2018 2/3 the informant to his own account. When the matter surfaced, the petitioners promised to refund the amount taken by Sudhanshu Kumar rather they produced a receipt of cash deposited in the bank account of the informant which was a fictitious receipt.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. The main allegation is on Sudhanshu Ranjan. Negligence on the part of the informant and others cannot be overlooked for the reason that they are also very responsible persons discharging honourous duty in courts of law. No amount was ever transferred to the account of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioners were also in conspiracy with Sudhanshu Ranjan. However, there is no material that the petitioners were also in contact with the informant and others.
Considering the fact that there is no substantial material against the petitioners to compel them to go to jail, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55977 of 2018(4) dt.30-11-2018 3/3 furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court-below where the case is pending in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No.321 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as condition that the petitioners shall fully cooperate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioners.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T