Patna High Court
Ravi Thakur @ Ravi Kumar @ SanojversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Thakur, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging his involvement in a violent land‑dispute incident where the informant, a differently‑abled person, was allegedly assaulted with a sword and an iron rod. The petitioner contended he has a clean record and that the allegations against him are false, asserting that only another accused, Vijay, used a sword and that his alleged assault with an iron rod caused only non‑vital injury. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous, the assault was brutal, and the informant’s disability heightened the seriousness of the offence. The Court examined the nature of the offences (including sections of the Bihar Penal Code covering assault, grievous hurt, and other offences) and the seriousness of the allegations. Concluding that the petitioner’s involvement could not be dismissed as trivial, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the allegations of grievous assault against a differently‑abled informant justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- grievous hurt
- land dispute
- false implication
- differently abled
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36881 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2025 Thana- KUMAR KHAND District- Madhepura
======================================================
Ravi Thakur @ Ravi Kumar @ Sanoj S/o Deep Narayan Takur R/o vill -
Gadhiya, Ward No. 10, P.S.- Kumarkhand, Distt.- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Isha Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State and
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),
190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 117(2), 303(2), 351(2) and
352 of the BNS and subsequently Section 109 of the BNS has
been added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on account of dispute relating to boundaries of the
land, the accused persons came on 03.09.2025 at 02:00 p.m. and
Vijay assaulted him by sword repeatedly on his head causing
injury and petitoner assaulted the informant by an iron rod
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36881 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/3
causing injury on right arm. Further, accused were able to
assault the informant since he is differently abled person.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is next submitted that specific allegation of
assaulting the informant repeatedly by sword is against Vijay
and as far as petitioner is concerned, he is alleged to have
assaulted the informant by an iron rod causing injury on hand
which is not a vital part of the body.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submit that informant is a differently abled person and even if
there was a dispute relating to land the accused ought not to
have assaulted the informant with such force which caused
grievous injury. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant that from perusal of the
case diary, it would manifest that informant suffered three
injuries, one on head and two on hand and all the injuries have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36881 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/3
been opined to be grievous in nature which amply demonstrates
that brute force was used while assaulting the informant.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the submissions made by the
learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with
Kumarkhand P.S. Case No. 206 of 2025 pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III,
Madhepura/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.