Ranjeet Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.814 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-934 Year-2023 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Sinha Son of Sri Surendra Prasad Lal Resident of Village/ Mohalla-Chitravani Campus,Bhatta Bazar.P.S.-Khajanchi Hat,District-Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhishek, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024 Heard Mr. Abhishek, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with K.Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 934 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 08.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 386, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant has given cinema hall and land on lease to the petitioner for seven years and after expiry of the lease period when the informant ask the petitioner to vacate the same then this petitioner has
2/4 threatened the informant and also demanded Rs. 50 lakhs as Rangdari.
4. 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. In fact, the informant has given the picture hall to the petitioner on lease and all of sudden he has removed the petitioner from the picture hall and then the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No. 1980C of 2023 and apart from that the petitioner has also filed Title Suit No. 3 of 2023 and Title Suit No. 158 of 2023 for restraining the informant to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. He further submits that although the family members of the informant have received injuries but the injury report of the injured persons suggests that the injuries are simple in nature.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner has clean antecedent and there is case and counter case between the parties and the injures are simple in
3/4 nature, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in connection with K.Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 934 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. 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 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 bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T