Allowed

Sandeep Kumar @ Guddu Rangeela @ Rangila v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 May 2025CR. MISC./24214/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to a petitioner charged under IPC 392 for robbery. The court noted the petitioner was not named in the FIR, implicated only via a self-confessional statement, there was no recovery, and no TIDP was conducted. Bail was allowed after completion of investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties of like amount to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul.

Sandeep Kumar @ Guddu Rangeela @ Rangila Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24214 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul

¶3

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

¶4

Sandeep Kumar @ Guddu Rangeela @ Rangila, aged about 26 years, Male, Son of Dinesh Yadav. Resident of Belokbara, Ward No. 5, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ======================================================

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 05-05-2025

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 300 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, two accused persons looted the monthly collection money from the informant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of dirty village politics. He submits that petitioner has not named in the FIR and there is no any recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner as well as no Test Identification Parade has been conducted till date. He further submits that his name has

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24214 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2025 2/3

¶15

been surfaced in this case only on the basis of self confessional statement of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2024.

¶16

Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.

¶17

From perusal of the FIR and impugned order of the

¶18

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Supaul dated 26.08.2024, it appears that petitioner is not named in the FIR. From perusal of the records, it appears that this bail petition has been filed after the rejection of the bail petition in B.P. No. 426 of 2024 dated 26.08.2024 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Supaul. It also appears that on the basis of written report of the informant Shankar Kumar, FIR has been lodged under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. During investigation, the name of the petitioner has been surfaced from his self confessional statement of the petitioner and he is under custody since 04.04.2024. Investigation has already been completed and chargesheet has already been submitted in this case. There is no any recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, no Test Identification Parade has been conducted by the Investigating Officer during investigation, so considering all

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24214 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2025 3/3

¶20

these aspects of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner above named 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 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 300 of 2023.

¶22

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶23

Anand Kr.

Sandeep Kumar @ Guddu Rangeela @ Rangila v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar @ Guddu Rangeela @ Rangila 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

Vikash kumar @ Rajiv Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Chaudhary @ Sumit Choudhary @ Sumit Kumar Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Deva @ Dev Kumar @ Deva Kumar @ Dev Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Vikram Vishwas Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar Vs The State of Bihar