Sanjay Kumar Ram @ Sanjay Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88099 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2025 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Ram @ Sanjay ram S/o- Mahendra Ram R/v- Rajgawan P.SJadia Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 165 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 137(2), 140(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons kidnapped the informant's son and demanded Rs. 50,000/- as ransom.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of statement given by victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88099 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026 2/3 omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that no cogent or substantive evidence is placed on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that there is direct contradiction between the version of the informant as stated in FIR and the statement of the victim as in the FIR, the informant has alleged that accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000/- as ransom whereas the victim has stated that this petitioner demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as ransom which casts doubt on the prosecution story.
Learned counsel goes on to submit that the present FIR is the retaliatory FIR lodged by the daughter of one of the accused persons being Jankinagar P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-accused has been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47215 of 2025. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2025 and has six criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88099 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026 3/3 of the case as also the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 165 of 2025, subject to the following conditions: (I) One of the bailors shall be the petitioner's own or close member.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed during the trial and shall not remain absent on two consecutive dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence/intimidate any witness during the course of trial.
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T