Patna High Court
Ranvir Singh Yadav @ Ranbir KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Ranvir Singh Yadav applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under multiple sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was not present at the alleged crime scene where an extortion attempt led to the shooting and death of the informant's son. The petitioner argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness and that the allegations against him were based solely on a disclosure by a third party. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s antecedent of six pending cases and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. After considering the submissions and the petitioner’s criminal history, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and his antecedent criminal record
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged non‑presence at the scene and the credibility of the informant affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- Arms Act
- extortion
- murder
- bail refusal
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15488 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2026 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna
======================================================
Ranvir Singh Yadav @ Ranbir Kumar Son of Late Ram Bilash Prasad
Resident of Village - Gulab Bag, P.S. - Barh, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Pandarak P. S. Case No.26 of 2026 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 308(4),
103(1), 109(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of sixteen cases as would manifest
from the supplementary affidavit, but then, petitioner was
acquitted in ten cases, as such, as of now petitioner has
antecedent of six cases and the informant alleges that his son
with Nityanand were going on a motorcycle when they were
intercepted by five named accused persons excluding the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15488 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
petitioner and accused persons said despite extortion amount of
Rs. Five lacs demanded by the petitioner, the same has not been
given, on objection by his son Dharmraj, fired causing injury on
head, thereafter Ashok fired causing injury on chest, but
Nityanand managed to flee and when his son fell the accused
persons assaulted him by bricks on his face and informed the
petitioner that victim has been killed. Further, Nityanand
disclosed about the occurrence, thus alleges that petitioner along
with Karambir got his son killed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and came
to be implicated by the informant who is not an eye witness to
the occurrence rather based on disclosure made by Nitayanand,
the FIR was instituted with the aforesaid allegation. It is further
submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true
without admitting, then petitioner is not the assailant of the
deceased rather specific allegation of causing firearm injury to
the deceased is against Dharmraj and Ashok.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that petitioner as of now has
antecedent of six cases. It is also submitted that it does not
appear probable that informant being father would have falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15488 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
implicated the petitioner until the same was disclosed by
Nityanand. It is also submitted that what is not in dispute rather
stands admitting that son of the informant was killed and if
privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. and also taking into consideration the antecedent of the
petitioner, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…