Ranjeet Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89120 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2022 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ranjeet Prasad Gupta S/o Late Ramchandra Sah R/o Village- Khairwa, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aditya Nath Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case no.229 of 2022 registered under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant who happens to be the husband of the Ward Member has made allegations of embezzlement of public money by the petitioner, the Mukhiya under different contracts.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the complaint itself, which was subsequently registered as an FIR, it would be evident that the cause of false implication is the political rivalry, the case having been initiated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89120 of 2025(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 by filing of the complaint by the husband of the Ward Member. The allegation of embezzlement of funds are all false and incorrect. In fact, no funds from the project nos.5, 13 and 14 have been withdrawn. It is submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the allegations levelled, the petitioner having remained in custody since 22.8.2025, chargesheet has been submitted in the case and the evidence is already in possession of the Investigating Authorities. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that from reading of the order of the learned Court below rejecting the bail of the petitioner as also the material that has transpired in course of investigation, it would clearly be evident that the petitioner who is a Mukhiya has embezzled the funds and it is not a case for grant of bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having remained in custody for over 7 months since 22.8.2025 and chargesheet having been submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case no.229 of 2022 on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89120 of 2025(3) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran. (Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T