Patna High Court
Ravin SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner was alleged to have fired indiscriminately, causing injuries, and the prosecution evidence supported the charges.
Summary
Ravin Singh, an army personnel on leave, was charged under Sections 109, 352, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing his licensed pistol indiscriminately during a family land‑dispute, injuring four members of the informant’s family. The petitioner claimed he acted in private defence after being attacked and argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness and that a pendrive evidence contradicted the prosecution. The State and the informant’s counsel contended that the injured parties, who are eye‑witnesses, identified the petitioner as the shooter. The court examined the seriousness of the alleged offences, the corroborative statements of the injured victims, and the lack of a compelling defence, and consequently refused the bail application. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial within nine months, with a provision to renew the bail plea thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of indiscriminate firing causing multiple injuries.
- Whether the petitioner’s act can be justified as private defence under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the informant’s statement qualifies as eye‑witness testimony sufficient to support the prosecution.
- Whether the pendrive evidence submitted by the informant undermines the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27, 30
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 3(5), 352
Subjects
- bail
- private defence
- Arms Act
- firearms injury
- family dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1755 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ravin Singh, S/o Umesh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Lagma, P.S.-
Singhiya, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
For the informant : Mr. Gunjesh Gautam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Singhiya P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025 instituted
for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 352, 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & Section 27/30 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the soil was floating in
the rain and gone towards the house of elder uncle of the
informant due to which his uncle Umesh Prasad Singh came and
started abusing his father. In the meantime, his Manjhla uncle,
Mahesh Prasad Singh came and forbidden to him. Then, another
son of Umesh Prasad Singh, namely, Ravin Singh (petitioner)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1755 of 2026(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/5
armed with pistol, came from his house and started firing
indiscriminately. It is further alleged that the uncle of the
informant, Umesh Prasad Singh also started indiscriminate
firing from his pistol. As a result, father of the informant,
namely, Suresh Singh and another uncle Mahesh Prasad Singh
sustained 4-5 bullet injuries and they fell down. It is further
alleged that when his mother Ranjana Devi came for rescue
them, both of them started firing upon her. The mother sustained
two bullet injuries on her thigh. On the sound of fire, when the
informant came outside, then Ram Kala Devi (Aunt) and Arpana
Devi (Bhabhi) came with cartridges to reload on their pistols.
The informant after seeing the condition of his father and uncle,
tried to run away, but both of them started indiscriminate firing
upon him, as a result, he received six firearms injuries. The
informant sustained 4 injuries on his thigh and one injury in left
hand and one bullet injury in his abdomen. On the sound of
firing, nearby people gathered there, as a result, they were fled
away and the informant and other were brought to the hospital
for treatment.
4. Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case. Learned senior counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1755 of 2026(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/5
petitioner further submits that both the parties are close agnates.
From bare perusal of F.I.R., it is evident that the informant is not
an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that as
per the allegation, as levelled in the F.I.R., the occurrence was in
two parts and the informant is not the eye-witness of the first
part, which is evident from the statement of the informant in the
fard beyan The present case is the counter blast of Singhiya P.S.
Case No. 184 of 2025 which was lodged by the wife of the
petitioner. The informant’s father and the petitioner’s father are
full brother. There is land dispute between the parties. The
occurrence took place due to rain water which was floating
through the house of the petitioner. The trouble started in both
the family when the elder uncle of the petitioner, namely, Suresh
Prasad Singh, the father of the informant, unloaded two tractor
soil for levelling the front of the house and because of that there
was water logging in front of the house of the petitioner’s
family. The petitioner digged some portion of the land of the
uncle to pass out the logged water and because of that, the
informant’s side came armed with various weapon and started
assaulting, and for in private defence and to save his life, the
petitioner started firing from his licensed arms. The petitioner
had fired only to save his life as well as lives of the family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1755 of 2026(4) dt.23-02-2026
4/5
members. The petitioner is an Army personnel and he visited his
native village on leave on 13.09.2025. Learned senior counsel
further submitted that during investigation, the informant,
namely, Gulshan Kumar submitted a Pendrive to the
Investigating Officer which contradicts the prosecution case.
The aforesaid facts has been recorded in paragraph no. 51 of the
supplementary case diary. Lastly, it has been submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2025 having no criminal
antecedents. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State as
well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that
four injured persons have sustained firearm injury on different
parts of the body including the abdomen, legs and the petitioner
fired indiscriminately upon the informant, his father, uncle and
mother. During investigation, the injured persons, who are eye-
witness to the occurrence, specifically stated in paragraph nos.
16, 17, 38 & 62 that the petitioner fired indiscriminately upon
them, as a result, they sustained bullet injuries on different parts
of the body. The injury reports also support the case of the
prosecution and the allegation of indiscriminate firing against
the petitioner due to which four persons were badly injured.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1755 of 2026(4) dt.23-02-2026
5/5
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and specific allegation against the petitioner that he
fired from his licensed pistol causing injury to four persons and
the prosecution case was also supported by the injured persons,
I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail on behalf of
the petitioner stands rejected.
8. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the
trial and take all endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest,
preferably, within a period of nine months from the date of
receipt or production of a copy of this order.
9. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew the
prayer for bail after nine months if the trial is not concluded
within the stipulated time.
(Khatim Reza, J)
premchand/-
U T
Checking your session…