Patna High Court
Ranjit Gupta @ Ranjit Kumar Tanti @ ... vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33028 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-577 Year-2019 Thana- SAHAYAK NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Ranjit Gupta @ Ranjit Kumar Tanti @ Raju, aged about 43 years, male, son
of Mahendra Prasad Das, resident of Teja Tola, P.S.- Sahayak, District-
Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2021
Heard Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned In-charge Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Sessions Trial No.52 of 2020 arising out of Katihar Town
(Sahayak) PS Case No.577 of 2019 dated 02.09.2019, instituted
under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner
as earlier such prayer was rejected on 28.02.2020 by Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha, as he then was, in Cr. Misc.
No.3581 of 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
though as per the allegation, the petitioner along four others is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33028 of 2020 dt.27-01-2021
said to have assaulted the son of the informant with brickbats
resulting in his death during treatment at Siliguri, but there is
false implication. It was submitted that the police have no
evidence with regard to initial treatment of the deceased locally
at Katihar and even in the hospital at Siliguri, where death
occurred, a UD case was lodged by the informant herself in
which only the name of co-accused, Jyotish Kumar, has been
taken. Learned counsel submitted that after three days the
present FIR has again been instituted at Katihar. Learned
counsel submitted that Jyotish Kumar is the nephew of the
petitioner and there is land dispute between the parties due to
which there is false implication of all the persons related to
Jyotish Kumar. Learned counsel submitted that similarly
situated co-accused, namely, Pradip Kumar Das has been
granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench on 28.05.2020 in Cr. Misc.
No.773 of 2020 and another co-accused Pankaj Mandal @
Pankaj Kumar Mandal has been granted bail on 06.01.2021 in
Cr. Misc. No.26172 of 2020. It was submitted that the petitioner
is in custody since 12th November, 2019 having no criminal
antecedent.
5. Learned APP submitted that the informant has
taken the name of the petitioner as one of the assailants of her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33028 of 2020 dt.27-01-2021
deceased son.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions
Judge-V, Katihar, in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2020 arising out of
Katihar Town (Sahayak) PS Case No.577 of 2019, subject to the
conditions (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of
the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the
Court. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail
bonds.
7. The application stands disposed off in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
