Patna High Court
Ranjit Sah @ Ranjit SwarnkarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the allegations did not outweigh his clean antecedent and lack of direct possession.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjit Sah, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Raghopur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025) registered under Section 7 of the Explosives (E.C.) Act for allegedly procuring illegal urea. The prosecution’s case relied on the statement of a driver who claimed the petitioner instructed him to transport the urea, though the urea was not recovered from the petitioner’s possession or residence. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, had no involvement, and possessed a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, after considering the facts and the petitioner’s clean record, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, subject to strict conditions including surety, personal appearance, and verification of antecedents. The order clarified that any observations made would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in a case registered under Section 7 of the Explosives Act.
- Whether the driver’s statement alone suffices to deny bail to the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession of the illegal urea justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 7 Explosives Act
- illegal fertilizer
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81924 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Ranjit Sah @ Ranjit Swarnkar, S/O Ashok Swarnkar, R/O Vill.- Bhimpur
Kewla, Ward no. 2, Panchayat Bhimpur, P.S.- Bhimpur, Dist.- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Raghopur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 registered for the offence
under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that he received secret information that illegal fertilizer
was being carried in a pickup van. The said van was intercepted
and total 2340 kg of Bharta Urea was recovered from the same
and the driver was apprehended, who disclosed his name as
Nitish Kumar. It is further alleged that the apprehended person
disclosed that he had procured the said urea on instruction of
Ranjit Sah @ Ranjit Swarnkar (petitioner) and was going to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81924 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
deliver the same to his house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has no
concern whatsoever with the recovered illegal urea. It has
further been submitted that the urea was neither recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner nor from his house
and merely on the statement of the driver, the petitioner has
been falsely implicated. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioner 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 from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) 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
Raghopur P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81924 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close
relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature
of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is
found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, 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 or
in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…