Allowed

Ritik Raj v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC14 May 2025CR. MISC./15332/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by accused in custody since November 2023 in a Sessions Trial concerning alleged possession of a loaded country-made pistol and cartridge. Considering the custody period and bail granted to the co-accused, the High Court allowed release on furnishing bail bonds with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned ADJ-III, Munger in Sessions Trial No.164 of 2024.

Ritik Raj Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15302 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2023 Thana- JAMALPUR District- Munger

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Shankar Tanti Son of Late Nagendra Tanti Village- Daultpur PS -Jamalpur Distt- Munger

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 14-05-2025

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶11

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2024 arising out of Jamalpur P.S Case No. 211 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b)a, 26(i)(ii)/35 of the Arms Act.

¶12

As per allegation in the FIR, there is recovery of one loaded country made pistol and a cartridge from the possession of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and neither any incriminating articles has been recovered from the place of occurrence. He

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15302 of 2025(3) dt.14-05-2025 2/2

¶15

further submits that seizure list has not been prepared according to Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and all the witnesses are police personal. It is also submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.11.2023 having eleven criminal antecedent. He further submits that other co-accused has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court.

¶16

However, learned APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

¶17

On perusal of the FIR, impugned order dated 06.07.2024 and period of custody and also considering the fact that co-accused has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court only as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ADJ-III, Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2024 arising out of Jamalpur P.S Case No. 211 of 2023

¶18

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶19

Sunnykr/-

¶20

Ritik Raj v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Raj v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Kumari @ Dr. Poonam Kumari @ Punam Kumari @ Punam Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar Through Vigilance, Bihar, Patna

Sanjeet Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjeet @ Sugan @ Sugan Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Munna @ Md. Munna Mansuri Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Mukhiya Vs The State of Bihar

Chhotu Chaudhary @ Dharmendra Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar