Patna High Court
Ravi Yadav @ Ravi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case arising from a FIR alleging forcible entry, assault, ransom demand of Rs. 20 lakhs, and threats, involving offences under several sections of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the petitioner, assaulted the informant, caused head injury, and fired weapons in the air before fleeing. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserted that a compromise had been reached between the parties, and argued that the matter was a petty dispute between land brokers. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations, the involvement of the Arms Act, and the petitioner’s multiple pending criminal cases. After considering the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing that if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, the trial court should promptly decide his bail application without prejudice.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving serious offences under the IPC and the Arms Act
- Whether the existence of a compromise between parties and the petitioner’s pending criminal cases affect the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 341, 385, 448, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- Arms Act
- ransom
- assault
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36413 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2023 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE
District- Gaya
======================================================
Ravi Yadav @ Ravi Kumar S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav R/o Village - Paharpur @
Parahpur, PS - Magadh Medical, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 03-06-2026 The Court proceeding is being conducted through
virtual mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
3. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Magadh Medical P.S. Case No. 283 of 2023, dated
08.06.2023, lodged under Sections 341, 323, 504, 324, 385, 448,
506 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act,
pending before the Court of A.C.J.M. II, Gaya.
4. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
five named accused persons including the present petitioner,
with the allegation that all the accused persons forcibly entered
the house of the informant, started assaulting him, demanded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36413 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
2/3
Rs. 20 lakhs as a ransom and also threatened that they would
not permit him to create a boundary on the land. It has been
further alleged that the co-accused, namely, Tannu Yadav,
assaulted the informant, due to which he sustained injury on the
head and subsequently became unconscious. Thereafter, all the
accused persons fled away resorting firing in air.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
further submits that, due to intervention of the well-wishers, the
parties have entered into a compromise. Counsel further submits
that both parties are land brokers and on a petty issue, a scuffle
took place between them. Counsel further submits that in the
light of the compromise petition annexed as Annexure-P/2, the
bail application of the petitioner may be considered. Counsel
also submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not
clean, as there are four criminal cases pending against him, and
he is on bail in all those cases.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that, from the contents of the
FIR, it transpires that the allegations are grave in nature.
Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedent of the
petitioner is not clean, as there are four criminal cases pending
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36413 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
3/3
against him, out of which three cases relate to the Arms Act.
Counsel further submits that the present case also relates to
offence under the Arms Act, and involves allegations of ransom
and threats to kill. During the scuffle, the informant also
sustained an injury on his head.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the petitioner is hereby rejected.
8. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that if he
surrenders within six weeks, the Trial Court is directed to pass
order on his surrender-cum-bail application on the same day
without being prejudiced by the fact that the anticipatory bail
application of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court, and
the Trial Court shall pass an order on the merits of the case.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.