Patna High Court
Ranjay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents did not warrant the privilege.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjay Yadav, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with a case registered under Section 308(5) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, alleging that he and co‑accused attempted extortion and fired at an informant. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs. 5 lakh at a sugarcane centre, and when the informant refused, the petitioner opened fire, injuring the informant. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after a four‑day delay, was motivated by a personal land dispute, and that no money was received, thus no offence was made out. The State highlighted the recovery of shell casings and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, portraying him as a habitual offender. Considering the seriousness of the allegation, the presence of forensic evidence, and the petitioner’s prior cases, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of extortion and firing at an informant under Section 308(5) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged personal enmity affect the merit of the bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 308(5), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- firearms
- criminal antecedent
- B.N.S. 2023
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24939 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2026 Thana- VISHAMBHARPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Ranjay Yadav Son of Gajadhar Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Khem
Matihania, P.S.- Bhisambharpur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Adesh Raj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending
his arrest in connection with Bhisambharpur P.S. Case No. 11 of
2026, dated 27.01.2026, registered for the offence punishable
under Section 308(5) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioner and co-accused
came at the sugarcane centre of the informant and demanded
rupees five lakhs as extortion money. When the informant refused,
they fired upon him and the informant somehow managed to save
his life.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
No occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. The
FIR has been lodged after a delay of four days without any
satisfactory explanation and it creates doubt over the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24939 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/2
story. Petitioner has been implicated due to personal enmity.
Petitioner and informant are co-villagers and there is pending land
dispute between them. No money or valuable security has been
received by the petitioner, hence no offence under Section 308(5)
of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out against the petitioner. The
petitioner is having antecedent of three cases and he is on bail in
all the said cases.
5. Learned APP opposes the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner and submits that shell casing was
recovered from the spot and the same has been sent for FSL
examination. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner
appears to be a habitual offender and has been in custody in a
number of cases.
6. Having regards to the nature of allegation that
petitioner is said to have fired upon the informant on account of
some demand and also considering the criminal antecedent of the
petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the
petitioner stands rejected.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T
Checking your session…