Patna High Court
RAVI SHEKHAR RANA @ LALLU KUMAR @ RAVISHEKHAR RANA@LALU RAMversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the bail application, upholding its earlier order denying bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Shekhar Rana, was charged under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly murdering a person involved in illicit drug trade, along with co‑accused Sonu. He had been in custody since April 2024 and previously applied for regular bail, which was rejected on 21‑Nov‑2024. He filed a second bail application, arguing that the trial was progressing with eight witnesses examined. The State opposed, emphasizing the brutal nature of the killing and the seriousness of the offences. The Patna High Court examined the application, found no new ground to revisit its earlier order, and dismissed the bail petition, directing the trial to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused in a murder case involving Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the IPC.
- Whether the earlier bail denial can be reviewed in light of trial progress.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- IPC
- high court
- trial progression
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10373 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2024 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Ravi Shekhar Rana @ Lallu Kumar @ Ravishekhar Rana@Lalu Ram S/O
Shivshankar Ram @ Devmuni Ram R/O Village- Mansurpur, P.S.- Durgawati,
District- Kaimur At Bhabua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare,APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for
grant of regular bail in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No.
100 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302,
120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application
of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2024
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 57558 of 2024 which reads as under:-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
O.P. No. 02.
2 . The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 100 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3 . As per the prosecution case, the petitioner
is accused of killing the deceased with co-accused Sonu
and others.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the deceased was engaged in selling of Heroine etc.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10373 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/2
and because of which lumpen elements used to visit his
place and he was found dead. The petitioner is in custody
since 01.04.2024.
5 . Learned A.P.P. for the State and the
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the
deceased has been killed by cutting his neck in a brutal
manner. During investigation, it has come that the
petitioner along with Sonu have killed the deceased
because of financial dispute.
6 . The learned counsel for the
informant has undertaken produce the witnesses on the
date fixed and has submitted that the prosecution will not
delay the trial.
7 . Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is
dismissed. The court below is directed to expedite the
trial of the petitioner.
8 . If the trial is delayed by the prosecution
then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the trial is progressing and till now eight
witnesses have been examined.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…