Ranjit Sah @ Ranjit Swarnkar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81924 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Ranjit Sah @ Ranjit Swarnkar, S/O Ashok Swarnkar, R/O Vill.- Bhimpur Kewla, Ward no. 2, Panchayat Bhimpur, P.S.- Bhimpur, Dist.- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that he received secret information that illegal fertilizer was being carried in a pickup van. The said van was intercepted and total 2340 kg of Bharta Urea was recovered from the same and the driver was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Nitish Kumar. It is further alleged that the apprehended person disclosed that he had procured the said urea on instruction of Ranjit Sah @ Ranjit Swarnkar (petitioner) and was going to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81924 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/3 deliver the same to his house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has no concern whatsoever with the recovered illegal urea. It has further been submitted that the urea was neither recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner nor from his house and merely on the statement of the driver, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81924 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 3/3 as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned 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 bonds in terms of the abovementioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/- U T