Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 12-12-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶14

A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 180 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the petitioners along with others attacked the informant with rod, stick and bricks and in such assault her husband, namely, Sujit Kumar sustained injuries on his head. It has further been alleged that the other co-accused persons took away gold chain, ring and cash of Rs. 10,000/- from her husband.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39870 of 2025(5) dt.12-12-2025 2/4

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are the full brothers of the injured Sujit Kumar. It has next been submitted that there was a minor scuffle between the two families and there is a case and counter case for the same incident and in fact the wife of Ranjeet Kumar(petitioner no. 1) had lodged a case bearing Maner P.S. Case No. 172 of 2022 which was prior to case lodged in the present application. It has also been submitted that the injuries sustained by the husband of the informant, namely, Sujit Kumar was stated in the case diary, however, the nature of the injury was not mentioned. From perusal of the case diary it is evident that the said injured was taken to PMCH for further treatment and from the CT scan report it has been referred to as “normal seen”. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners have a clean antecedent.

¶19

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39870 of 2025(5) dt.12-12-2025 3/4

¶22

from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 180 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their close relative.

¶24

(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.

¶25

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

¶26

(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.

¶27

(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, 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 shall not be delayed for purpose of the same or in the name of verification.

¶28