Patna High Court
Ramesh RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Rai, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving multiple offences under the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, including robbery, extortion, assault and weapon discharge. The informant alleged that Rai and others looted his shop, assaulted his father, and damaged CCTV equipment. Rai contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that he and the informant are agnates engaged in a pending property dispute, a relationship not disclosed in the FIR. The State opposed the bail, but the informant’s counsel could not rebut the claim of a familial dispute. The court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 2 of the B.N.S.S., provided the petitioner surrenders within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and undisclosed familial relationship with the informant warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 308(3), 351(2), 352
- B.N.S.S. — s. 2
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- property dispute
- agnate relationship
- Arms Act
- robbery
- extortion
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18777 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2024 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Ramesh Rai son of Late Sitaram Rai Resident of Village -Sahbajiya PS
-Rajepur Distt -East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Usha Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Gyan Ranjan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 308(3), 303(2), 352,
351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of five cases and the informant alleges
that on 18.12.2024 at 2 P.M. the accused persons including the
petitioner came to his shop and started abusing, on protest,
petitioner gave order to loot the shop and Naresh demanded
extortion of Rs.5 lacs, thereafter accused persons looted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18777 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
shop and assaulted, further Navlesh assaulted his father by butt
of pistol causing injury on nose and destroyed the CCTV
camera and Raushan took Rs.30,000/- while Navlesh fired in the
air when people gathered, the accused fled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant with an allegation that the occurrence was committed
on the order of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner
and the informant are agnates and are having dispute relating to
property for which a Title Suit No.718 of 2024 is pending
adjudication in between the parties at District Court, Motihari. It
is next submitted that though petitioner and the informant are
related but then from perusal of the FIR, it would manifest that
informant for reasons best known has not disclosed his
relationship with the petitioner rather has given an impression
that criminal came to his shop with an intent to loot. It is also
submitted that no doubt the petitioner has antecedent but then
facts of the case also requires to be appreciated. It is next
submitted that deliberately it has been alleged in the FIR that
accused damaged the CCTV, the said allegation has been
levelled only with a view to implicate the petitioner along with
others based on oral allegation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18777 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant is not in a position to rebut
the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that petitioner and the informant are agnates and are
having dispute relating to property and the said relationship is
not disclosed in the FIR.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Rajepur
P.S. Case No.280/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section (2) B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…