Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar @Ranjeet Mahto @ Bhim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88561 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-326 Year-2024 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Mahto @ Bhim, Son of Ramjee Mahto, Resident of Village - Barbatta, P.S. - Sonpur, District-Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 326 of 2024, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, a theft was committed in the dwelling house of the informant in the night and the thieves took away money and utensils from the house of the informant. The safe locker of the Almirah was also found broken, but the details of missing articles were not given and the informant said that the details of the stolen articles would be given later on.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88561 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 2/3 instance of co-accused Ashok Mahto, who is a co-sharer of the petitioner and is having enmity over some land dispute with the petitioner. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that till 2023, the petitioner was not having any criminal antecedent and after he has been named in this case by the co-accused Ashok Mahto, the petitioner has been made accused in five other cases. The learned counsel further submits that though details of theft of jewellery/ornaments have not been mentioned in the FIR and even no details have come subsequently in the case diary, the petitioner has been apprehended showing recovery of stolen jewellery, but the ornaments belong to the petitioner and are not stolen articles. The petitioner has been made accused merely on suspicion. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2024 in this case and charge sheet has been submitted.

5. The learned A.P.P. opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is accused in altogether five cases of similar nature.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88561 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 3/3 submissions made hereinabove and considering the submission of charge sheet and the period of custody of the petitioner, he is directed to 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 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-10, Chapra, in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 326 of 2024, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437

(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

(iii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar type of offences in future.

(iv) In case of absence on three 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.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T