Patna High Court
Ravi JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Once a process under Sections 83 and 84 of the BNSS is issued, the court must not grant pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Jha, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case involving alleged kidnapping, assault, extortion and land‑grab offences under multiple sections of the Bihar Non‑Organised Societies (BNS) Act. The FIR alleged that the petitioner and associates abducted an informant, assaulted him, forced him to sign blank documents and seized Rs 25,000. The petitioner argued that he had been granted interim protection by the High Court on 8 April 2026 and that many of his other cases had resulted in acquittal, contending that the offences did not fall within the scope of organized crime under Section 111 of the BNS. The informant’s counsel and the State opposed bail, emphasizing that a process under Sections 83 and 84 of the BNSS had been issued and that the investigation was ongoing. The Court, applying the settled principle that issuance of a process under Sections 83 and 84 precludes pre‑arrest bail, declined to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Can pre‑arrest bail be granted when a process under Sections 83 and 84 of the BNSS has been issued?
- Do the alleged offences fall within the ambit of organized crime under Section 111 of the BNS?
- Do prior acquittals in other cases influence the grant of pre‑arrest bail?
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Sections 83 & 84
- organized crime
- Section 111 BNS
- land dispute
- kidnapping
- assault
- Bihar Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19670 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2026 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Ravi Jha Son of Late Jaldhar Jha Resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S.-
Rautara, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 04-05-2026 Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Abhishek Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Suresh
Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 179 of 2026, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 127, 119, 308,
115(2), 118(2), 308(3), 122, 303(2), 109, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
informant had entered into an agreement in 2023 for purchase of
17 acres of land from Dulal Kant Nandi, and on 09.02.2026,
while returning from Circle Office, Hasanganj, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19670 of 2026(3) dt.04-05-2026
2/4
along with associates intercepted their vehicle and forcibly
entered it at gunpoint. It is alleged that they abducted the
informant, took him to a farmhouse, restrained and assaulted
him, causing multiple injuries. Under threat of death, the
informant and the landowner were allegedly forced to sign
blank papers and a backdated stamp paper. The accused persons
are further alleged to have acted with intent to grab the land and
also snatched Rs. 25,000/- from the informant. Due to fear, the
informant claims he handed over original documents and wrote
receipt of Rs. 1.30 crore, and after escaping, he sought medical
treatment and lodged the case on 11.02.2026.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further
submitted that before the process under Sections 83 and 84
BNSS was issued by the learned District Court declaring the
petitioner proclaimed offender, the petitioner was granted
interim protection by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026, as
such, the subsequent order of the learned District Court should
not come in a way to deprive the petitioner of his personal
liberty considering that the offence, which has been alleged in
the FIR, don't come within the purview of organized crime in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19670 of 2026(3) dt.04-05-2026
3/4
accordance with the provision of Section 111 of the BNS.
Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has been
acquitted in 7 cases out of 12 cases. On these grounds, petitioner
seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and
submitted that petitioner is involved in almost twelve cases
though, he has been acquitted in many of those cases, but, so far
as, the conduct of the petitioner is concerned, in spite of having
granted interim protection by this Court, he has not cooperated
in course of investigation, as such, the learned District Court, in
accordance with law and established procedure, has issued
process under Sections 83 and 84 of the BNSS as would appear
from paragraph no. 224 of the case diary.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has also vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and also considering the information contained in
paragraph no. 224 of the case diary, without going into the
merits of the allegation made in the FIR, in view of settled
principle of law that once the process under Sections 83 and 84
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19670 of 2026(3) dt.04-05-2026
4/4
has been issued, the Court must restrain from granting pre-arrest
bail, moreover, in the present case, the informant has given
information that altogether 12 criminal cases are registered
against the petitioner and the investigation is still going on, I am
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.
8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands
dismissed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.