Patna High Court
Bholi Yadav @ Ravi Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Bholi Yadav @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging a clean antecedent and that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. He claimed that the investigation linked him to the crime only through a confessional statement of an apprehended accused and that he was preparing for competitive examinations. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was ongoing, the petitioner could abscond, and that a similar co‑accused had previously been denied anticipatory bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, agreed with the State and found no merit in granting bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR and investigation
- Whether the possibility of the petitioner absconding justifies denial of anticipatory bail
- Whether the reliance on a confessional statement of a co‑accused is sufficient to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- confessional statement
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- clean antecedent
- bail rejection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1150 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2025 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
Bholi Yadav @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar S/o Ram Nath Prasad Resident of Village
- Tarpura A/P - Shyam Bhawan Yadvesh Market, P.S.- Masaurhi, District-
Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Sri Saket Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 1. Heard Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rabindra Kumar, learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and
61(2) of the BNS as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that his nephew was shot dead by unknown
criminals.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the FIR was against unknown. It is further submitted that
petitioner earlier was working with the Merchant Navy but had
to quit the job on account of health issues. It is next submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1150 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
that petitioner is preparing for teachers competitive
examination. It is also submitted that the wife of the petitioner
represented before the higher police officials to get the case
investigated in its correct perspective as the petitioner came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of
apprehended accused. It is further submitted that Sunny Kumar
who claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence did not name
the petitioner nor disclosed the name of any of the accused
persons but in course of investigation, he divulged the name of
three accused who were arrested and based on the confessional
statement of apprehended accused, the name of the petitioner
transpired. It is submitted that petitioner is not a land broker.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that
what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that nephew of
the informant was killed by unknown accused and the FIR was
instituted against unknown and the name of the petitioner
transpired, during the course of investigation, based on the
confessional statement of apprehended accused. It is further
submitted that investigation is continuing and if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond. It is next submitted that similarly situated co-accused,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1150 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
Gyan Ranjan @ Gyan Ranjan Chaudhary had approached this
Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 53638 of
2025 and the same came to be rejected vide order dated
20.08.2025 by this Court.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made
by the learned A.P.P. for the State, as such, is not inclined to
extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in
connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 298 of 2025 pending in
the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Masaurhi, Patna /Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…