IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69077 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Rajesh Ranjan Son of Late Narsingh Prasad R/o Village - Bagaha Bazar, Ward No.23, P.S. - Bagaha, Dist. - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha., APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 25-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bagaha P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant alleges the petitioner and a customer conspired to mortgage fake gold jewellery before the bank, causing financial loss. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is the registered valuer of the Bank of India, Bagaha Branch. Learned Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69077 of 2025(3) dt.25-11-2025 2/3 counsel further submitted that the mortgaged jewellery remained in exclusive custody of the Bank for a long period and, therefore, any alleged substitution of fake gold could only have occurred therein, yet the petitioner has been falsely implicated to shield the negligence and lapses of Bank officials. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2025 and has two criminal antecedents. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner submitting that the petitioner is the main culprit who conspired with co- accused Upendra Yadav to cheat the Bank and embezzled public money, and that the petitioner even received his share of the defalcated amount on the very day he valued the fake mortgaged jewellery, as reflected from the bank account statement as per the material available in the case diary and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there being direct allegation against the petitioner of embezzling the amount as per the material available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69077 of 2025(3) dt.25-11-2025 3/3 7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected. Alok Verma/- (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) U T