Patna High Court
Ramdahin Saw @ RakeshversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted and rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramdahin Saw, applied for regular bail in a case registered in 2007 under sections 384, 385, 386, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1‑B)(a) and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case is based solely on the statement of a co‑accused, with no incriminating material recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, had been in custody since August 2025, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s long period of abscondence—approximately 18 years. The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the fact that many co‑accused had already been released on bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, finding no sufficient ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offences and his long period of abscondence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 384, 385, 386
Subjects
- regular bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- abscondence
- criminal antecedents
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15188 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2007 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
Ramdahin Saw @ Rakesh, S/O Late Ranju Saw, R/O Village - Mahadipur,
PS- Uphara, District - Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Tekari P.S. Case no.11
of 2007 registered under sections 384, 385, 386 and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-B)(a) and 35 of the Arms
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that having received secret information about the members of
MCC having assembled in the house of Gaurav, it is stated that a
raid was conducted and Sudhir @ Gaurav was arrested.
Incriminating articles including purchas etc. were recovered.
The accused who was arrested namely Sudhir @ Gaurav
confessed to have committed various crimes of threats,
extortion, stopping of public work etc. and of having passed on
the proceeds thereof to this petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15188 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The only
material against him is the statement of a co-accused made
before police. No incriminating article has been recovered from
the petitioner’s possession and large number of co-accused as
stated in paragraph no.13 have been enlarged on bail. Though
the petitioner has criminal antecedents but he has been acquitted
in one case and is on bail in the two others. The petitioner is in
custody since 16.8.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in
the case. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the
petitioner in the F.I.R. together with the fact that in a case
registered in the year 2007, the petitioner continued to abscond
for 18 years till he was taken into custody in 2025, the Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application
is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.