Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76083 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1297 Year-2023 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE District- Munger ====================================================== 1.

Rahul Kumar S/O Dr. Pran Ranjan Ram @ Dr. Pran Ranjan Raj R/O Vill.- Nawada, P.o.- Tilakpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur- 813213 2.

Sangita Devi @ Sangeeta Devi W/O Dr. Pran Ranjan Ram @ Dr. Pran Ranjan Raj R/O Vill.- Nawada, P.o.- Tilakpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur- 813213 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Yatharth Anand S/O Gauri shankar R/O Vill.- Mangarh, P.s.- Dharahra, P.o.- Mangardh, Dist.- Munger.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sapan Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP For the complainant :

Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2025 Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1297 (c) of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, co-accused, Dr. Pran Ranjan Ram in connivance with the other accused persons

2/4 have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by taking money from the complainant for giving job in Railway Organization. He neither provided the job nor refunded the said money to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the complaint petition is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint petition. The complainant has given money in question to co-accused, namely, Dr. Pran Ranjan Ram and the petitioners have been made accused in the present case because petitioner no. 1 is son and petitioner no. 2 is wife of coaccused, namely, Dr. Pran Ranjan Ram and the complainant has given money to him in presence of these two petitioners. He further submits that from perusal of the complaint petition it appears that no case is made out against the petitioners and the present complaint petition against these petitioners have been filed only to harass the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as leanred Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the

3/4 petitioners are named in the complaint petition but fairly submits that the petitioners have not received any amount from the complainant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioners have clean antecedent, they have been made accused merely on the ground that they are the family members of the co-accused, namely, Dr. Pran Ranjan Ram and they have not received any amount from the complainant, 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 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Munger in connection with Complaint Case No. 1297(c) of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:- i.

Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

4/4 ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T