Patna High Court
Ranvir YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Ranvir Yadav was named in an FIR for demanding ransom from a government contractor, with charges under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act. He contended that the main allegation was against his co-accused Bharat Yadav and that a compromise had been reached between the parties, filing a joint compromise petition in the district court. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, asserting a clean antecedent, while the State opposed the relief. The court noted the compromise, the petitioner’s clean record, and the fact that the primary thrust of the allegation lay with Bharat Yadav. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks, furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, and comply with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent by the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the allegations and the existence of a compromise between the parties
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 126(2), 308(2), 308(5), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- compromise petition
- ransom demand
- criminal antecedent
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Arms Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5870 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Ranvir Yadav S/o Late Bhujangi Yadav R/o vill - Rohiyar, P.S.- Mansi, Distt.-
Khagaria, Bihar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brajesh Sahay, Advocate
Ms.Seema Srivastava, Advocate
Ms.Amrita Kumari, Advocate
Ms.Harshita, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case
No. 125 of 2025, G.R. No. 1535/2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 352, 308(2),
351(2) and 351(3), 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’) and section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to demand
ransom money from the informant who was a government
contractor in Maa Katyayani temple and was engaged in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5870 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
2/3
construction work under the project of Tourism Department,
Government of Bihar.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that thrust of allegation appears against
co-accused Bharat Yadav and even as per FIR, cash of Rs.
20,000/- was received by him during course of occurrence. It
is submitted that as petitioner is related with Bharat Yadav he
was implicated with the present case. It is pointed out that the
confusion between the parties now appears resolved and the
dispute and differences also compromised for which a
compromise petition jointly signed by the parties was filed
before the court concerned, district – Khagaria. Petitioner
claimed clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as thrust of allegation is available
against Bharat Yadav, where matter now appears
compromised between the parties, coupled with the fact that
petitioner is a man of clean antecedent, accordingly, above-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5870 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
3/3
named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a
period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1 st Class,
Khagaria/concerned court in connection with Mansi P.S. Case
No. 125 of 2025, G.R. No. 1535/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
7. It is made clear that learned trial court must verify
the criminal antecedent of this petitioner and if he found
indulged in any criminal case contrary to his affidavit/
submission, the bail bond of the petitioner shall not be
accepted.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…