Patna High Court
Raunak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Raunak Kumar, was arrested in connection with alleged extortion and unlawful possession of arms under IPC Sections 385, 387 and Arms Act Section 27. He claimed the allegations were false, arguing that the ransom demand was made by an unknown person and that the mobile number used belonged to someone in West Bengal. The petitioner, who has five prior cases, has been in custody since September 2024 and no charges have yet been framed. The State opposed bail, fearing the petitioner might abscond. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply for bail after the charges are framed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences and his antecedent record.
- Whether the lack of charge framing and the alleged false implication justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 385, 387
Subjects
- bail
- extortion
- Arms Act
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59102 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Raunak Kumar S/o Lalan Singh R/o Vill- Cheriyabariyarpur, P.S.-
Cheriyabariyarpur, District - Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 385 and 387 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedents of five cases and the informant
alleges that on 27.04.2024 at about 08:48 p.m., he received a
call from an unknown person who disclosed his name as Raunak
Sardar and the person demanded ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- till
01.05.2024 with a threat that if the demand is not met, the
consequences would be bad. Further, the said person also sent
message on Whatsapp demanding Rs.10,00,000/-. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59102 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
alleged that petitioner runs a general store at the road side on
SH-55 and brings articles from Begusarai by bus and thus
apprehends that any untoward occurrence may take place with
him on the way.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable
that had the petitioner been demanding ransom, in that event, he
would have disclosed his name or would have made call or sent
message from his Whatsapp. It is also submitted that during
course of investigation, it transpired that the mobile number
from which the message was sent belongs to a person residing
in West Bengal as recorded at para-107 of the case diary. It is
further submitted that since petitioner has antecedents of five
cases, as such, he came to be implicated at the behest of the
police. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since
05.09.2024 but then till date even charges have not been framed.
5. The learned APP opposes the bail application and
submits that in the event if privilege of bail is granted to the
petitioner, the petitioner may abscond as charges, till date, have
not been framed as submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59102 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Cheriyabariyarpur P.S. Case
No.90 of 2024, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-1 st,
Manjhaul.
7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…