Patna High Court
Sunny Kumar @ Rohit RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioners as the allegations of organized crime and extortion were serious and the risk of tampering with evidence existed.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered anticipatory bail applications filed by two petitioners, Binod Kumar and Sunny Kumar, who were alleged to be part of an organized gang involved in extortion of real‑estate builders. The allegations arose from a separate FIR (Case No.129 of 2025) and a later FIR that charged the petitioners under Sections 111(4), 111(6) and 111(7) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The petitioners argued that the second FIR was redundant, that no specific charge was made against them, and that they possessed legitimate wealth. The State opposed bail, contending that the matters involved organized crime, disproportionate assets and a risk of tampering with evidence, and that the jurisdiction for the bail application was improper. After hearing both sides, the Court agreed with the State and declined to grant anticipatory bail to either petitioner, finding the allegations serious enough to warrant continued custody.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Sections 111(4), 111(6) and 111(7) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 in view of alleged involvement in organized extortion.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail applications when the FIRs stem from the same set of facts.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 111(4), 111(6), 111(7)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 386, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- organized crime
- extortion
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Section 111
- criminal procedure
- jurisdiction
- disproportionate assets
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58524 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna
======================================================
Binod Kumar S/o Anant Rai @ Anant Roy R/o - Maula Kamla Gopalpur, P.S -
Maner, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62334 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna
======================================================
Sunny Kumar @ Rohit Ranjan S/o Late Vijay Prasad R/o Village- Kothwan,
P.S.- Khagaul, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 58524 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ghanshyam Tiwary
Mr.Mithilesh Kr. Arya
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra (APP)
Mr.Apurv Harsh
Mr.Manu Tripurari
Mr.Raghu Raj Pratap
Mr.Astitva
Mr.Hritik Anand
Mr.Pranshu Prakash
Mr.Jaya Singh
Mr.Aditi Sahay
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62334 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjiv Sharan
Mr.aditya kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra- A.P.P.
Mr.Mr.Apurv Harsh
Mr.Manu Tripurari
Mr.Raghu Raj Pratap
Mr.Astitva
Mr.Hritik Anand
Mr.Pranshu Prakash
Mr.Jaya Singh
Mr.Aditi Sahay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
2/12
ORAL ORDER
6 01-05-2026 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58524 of 2025
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP Mr. Ajay Mishra for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 111(4), 111(6) and
111(7) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedents of two
cases. It is further submitted that Khagaul P.S. Case No.129
of 2025, dated 10.04.2025 was instituted wherein one
Kumar Gaurav (informant), a builder, alleged that he
received a call from Mobile No.7488332851 and the caller
disclosed his name as Pinku Yadav brother of Ritlal and
asked the informant to purchase construction material from
him for his ongoing construction work and threatened that if
he will not buy the construction material from him, then he
will not be able to proceed with construction of his ongoing
project. Further, the informant started purchasing
construction material from him but no bill was provided.
Further, Niraj and Dheeraj used to come on the site of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
3/12
informant with the materials. It is next alleged that
according to him, the price of the purchased material was
Rs.19 lakhs but accused were demanding Rs.33 lakhs. It is
further alleged that the higher demand is basically in nature
of extortion It is next alleged that he received a call from
Ritlal Yadav who asked the informant to come and meet
him at his village, accordingly, Kumar Gaurav (informant)
along with his partner met Ritlal and took time for payment.
Further, his partner again got a call from Ritlal who
threatened to make payment of Rs.30 lakhs. Further, an
amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid and Ritlal was assured that
rest amount Rs.26 lakhs shall be paid after Deepawali or
Chhath. It is next alleged that Ritlal made him sign on a
stamp paper that he has taken loan of Rs.30 lakhs out of
which Rs.4 lakhs is being paid, next alleges that since Rs.26
lakhs, which was being demanded by way of extortion, was
not paid, hence the informant started receiving threatening
from different numbers. Further, Dheeraj, Niraj, Shrawan
along with others came and made the labourers working on
the site leave, next alleges that one Sunil came and
disclosed that since informant has entered into an agreement
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
4/12
for sale for purchasing 15 Katthas land in Ritlal’s village,
hence he should meet him and he will fix the meeting, next
alleges that Sunil is the man who deals with extortion
money, further alleges that about 10 days back, brother-in-
law of Ritlal, namely, Chiku came and threatened how he
has purchased 15 Katthas of land in the village without
permission of Ritlal and also disclosed that land owner from
whom he purchased the land was killed by them and
demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs, further alleges that
informant gave Rs.10 lakhs out of fear and also cleared the
earlier dues and he has recording of threats being given by
Ritlal.
4. It is submitted that the instant petitioner was not
an accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, which
was with regard to demand of extortion, as recorded herein
above. It is next submitted that during course of
investigation of Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, certain
additional materials came to the notice of the authorities
based on which the superior officers directed the
subordinate authority to institute a separate FIR based on
which the instant FIR came to be instituted in which the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
5/12
petitioner is seeking bail. It is submitted that the allegation
in the instant FIR is that the informant alleges that accused
persons including the petitioner along with others are part
of an organized gang and demands ransom from real estate
builders and businessmen by threatening them of dire
consequences and, as such, have amassed huge wealth
illegally.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why a
second FIR came to be instituted when in Khagaul P.S. Case
No.129 of 2025 itself the allegations, as alleged in the
instant FIR, could have been investigated. It is further
submitted that though petitoner is named in the FIR but then
no speicfic allegation is alleged against him but then during
course of investigatiion, it has come that house of the
petitioner was raided and some blank stamp papers along
with cash and other objectionable articles were recovered
but then authorities do not disclose what was the amount of
cash which was seized from the house of the petitioner. It is
next submitted that petitioner being maternal nephew of
Ritlal Yadav came to be implicated in the instant case. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
6/12
further submitted that no doubt petitioner has antecedent of
two cases but then the said cases are not related to extortion.
It is also submitted that had petitioner not been related to
Ritlal Yadav in that event the petitioner would not have
been implciated in the instant case.
6. The learned APP Mr. Ajay Mishra vehemently
opposes the bail application and submits that the
submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner no doubt on the face of it appears to
be attractive but then the issue raised in the instant regular
bail application cannot be adjudicated in the instant
jurisdiction. It is submitted that if petitioner is aggrieved by
the fact that as to why the instant FIR was instituted when
the allegation against the petitioner could have been
investigated in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025 itself, the
petitioner can move before an appropriate forum for seeking
redressal of his grievance. It is also submitted that the
present FIR has been instituted with an allegation that
petitioner and others are involved in organized crime and
have amassed wealth disproportionate to their known
sources of income.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
7/12
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has land
worth Rs.2,60,00,000/- but then the same was purchased not
from money amassed through illegal means, but from
earning of the petitioner on which learned A.P.P. submits
that the same also requires to be investigated for which
interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. It is also
submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted the
petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made
by the learned A.P.P. as such is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail application to the petitioner.
9. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected. Rejected.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62334 of 2025
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP Mr. Ajay Mishra for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 111(4), 111(6) and
111(7) of B.N.S., 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
8/12
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedents of one
case on which the learned A.P.P. submits that the said case
is of extortion as Khagaul P. S. Case No.166 of 2018 was
instituted under Section 386, 504 and 34 of the I.P.C. It is
further submitted that Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025,
dated 10.04.2025 was instituted wherein one Kumar Gaurav
(informant), a builder, alleged that he received a call from
Mobile No.7488332851 and the caller disclosed his name as
Pinku Yadav brother of Ritlal and asked the informant to
purchase construction material from him for his ongoing
construction work and threatened that if he will not buy the
construction material from him, then he will not be able to
proceed with construction of his ongoing project. Further,
the informant started purchasing construction material from
him but no bill was provided. Further, Niraj and Dheeraj
used to come on the site of the informant with the materials.
It is next alleged that according to him, the price of the
purchased material was Rs.19 lakhs but accused were
demanding Rs.33 lakhs. It is further alleged that the higher
demand is basically in nature of extortion It is next alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
9/12
that he received a call from Ritlal Yadav who asked the
informant to come and meet him at his village, accordingly,
Kumar Gaurav (informant) along with his partner met Ritlal
and took time for payment. Further, his partner again got a
call from Ritlal who threatened to make payment of Rs.30
lakhs. Further, an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid and Ritlal
was assured that rest amount Rs.26 lakhs shall be paid after
Deepawali or Chhath. It is next alleged that Ritlal made him
sign on a stamp paper that he has taken loan of Rs.30 lakhs
out of which Rs.4 lakhs is being paid, next alleges that since
Rs.26 lakhs, which was being demanded by way of
extortion, was not paid, hence the informant started
receiving threatening from different numbers. Further,
Dheeraj, Niraj, Shrawan along with others came and made
the labourers working on the site leave, next alleges that
one Sunil came and disclosed that since informant has
entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing 15
Katthas land in Ritlal’s village, hence he should meet him
and he will fix the meeting, next alleges that Sunil is the
man who deals with extortion money, further alleges that
about 10 days back, brother-in-law of Ritlal, namely, Chiku
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
10/12
came and threatened how he has purchased 15 Katthas of
land in the village without permission of Ritlal and also
disclosed that land owner from whom he purchased the land
was killed by them and demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs,
further alleges that informant gave Rs.10 lakhs out of fear
and also cleared the earlier dues and he has recording of
threats being given by Ritlal.
4. It is submitted that the instant petitioner was not
an accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, which
was with regard to demand of extortion, as recorded herein
above. It is next submitted that during course of
investigation of Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, certain
additional materials came to the notice of the authorities
based on which the superior officers directed the
subordinate authority to institute a separate FIR based on
which the instant FIR came to be instituted in which the
petitioner is seeking bail. It is submitted that the allegation
in the instant FIR is that the informant alleges that accused
persons including the petitioner along with others are part
of an organized gang and demands ransom from real estate
builders and businessmen by threatening them of dire
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
11/12
consequences and, as such, have amassed huge wealth
illegally.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why a
second FIR came to be instituted when in Khagaul P.S. Case
No.129 of 2025 itself the allegations, as alleged in the
instant FIR, could have been investigated. It is further
submitted that though petitioner is named in the FIR but
then no specific allegation is alleged against him but then
during course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner
used to collect rent from the shops constructed on the land
of the government on which learned A.P.P. submits that it
was not collection of rent rather was extortion as the shops
were built on the land of the government as such petitioner
had no occasion to go to the shopkeepers for collection of
rent.
6. The learned APP Mr. Ajay Mishra vehemently
opposes the bail application and submits that the
submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner no doubt on the face of it appears to
be attractive but then the issue raised in the instant regular bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58524 of 2025(6) dt.01-05-2026
12/12
application cannot be adjudicated in the instant jurisdiction.
It is submitted that if petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that
as to why the instant FIR was instituted when the allegation
against the petitioner could have been investigated in
Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025 itself, the petitioner can
move before an appropriate forum for seeking redressal of
his grievance. It is also submitted that the present FIR has
been instituted with an allegation that petitioner and others
are involved in organized crime and have amassed wealth
disproportionate to their known sources of income. It is also
submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted the
petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made
by the learned A.P.P. as such is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail application to the petitioner.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…