Patna High CourtCR. MISC./81368/2024bail granted

Ranjeet Ram @ Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-09Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81368 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2024 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== Ranjeet Ram @ Ranjeet Kumar S/o- Aklu Ram Village- Mahua Abdulpur shahpur chandan PS- Mahua District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Ruby Kumari W/o- Ranjeet Ram @ Ranjeet Kumar, D/o- Medhan Das Village- Jaddua Bazar Ps-Hajipur Dist- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kunwar Ajit Singh, Advocate For the Complainant :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025 Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 30.06.2025, both the parties have filed their respective affidavits.

2. Office is directed to put up the same on record.

3. Heard Mr. Kunwar Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Complainant and Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 60 of 2024 dated 06.01.2204 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 406, 494 of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance

2/4 has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. As per the Complaint Petition, the complainant alleged that she was subjected to torture and harassment by the petitioner and his family members due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R.

7. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 17.04.2025, the petitioner was directed to bring back the Complainant to her matrimonial house.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of supplementary affidavit that the petitioner has gone to the house of the Complainant on 26.04.2025 but the Complainant did not agree to come to her matrimonial house with the petitioner.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the Complainant have vehemently opposed

3/4 the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the Complainant has also filed an affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has never visited the house of the Complainant.

11. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out the certificate which was issued by the Ward Parshad which suggest the Ward Parshad has issued the certificate in favour of both the parties.

12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 2nd Class, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No. 60 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner 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

4/4 on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner 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 petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

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