Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ravi Raj @ Rajesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.

Summary

The petitioner, Ravi Raj (Rajesh Yadav), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 191(2), 191(32), 190 and 103(1) of the B.N.S. The incident involved an accident where Rahul Kumar attempted to help an injured cyclist, was mistakenly assaulted by villagers, and later died, leading to two differing FIRs. The petitioner argued he has a clean record and that the allegations are general and omnibus, citing a prior anticipatory bail granted to a co‑accused. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., and warned that the bail could be cancelled if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the allegations under the B.N.S.
  • Whether the nature of the allegations (general and omnibus) justifies denial of anticipatory bail
  • Whether conditions can be imposed on anticipatory bail and under what circumstances it may be cancelled

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 438 Cr.P.C.
  • Section 482 B.N.S.S.
  • FIR
  • assault
  • death
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6257 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2024 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Ravi Raj @ Rajesh Yadav Son of Janak Prasad @ Jhanak Prasad Resident Of
                 Village- Ghuran Bigha, PS- Kako, District- Jehanabad

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   29-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),

                   191(32), 190 and 103(1) of the BNS.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that his brother son-in-law, namely, Rahul Kumar was

                   coming from his village to his in-laws house, when on the way a

                   vehicle dashed an unknown cyclist and Rahul Kuamr out of

                   humanity was trying to help him when villager gather and

                   mistook Rahul Kumar as perpetrator of accident and started

                   assaulting him. The informant along with Sudhanshu, Himanshu

                   and Sonu came to the place of occurrence and tried to save
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6257 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
                                            2/4




          Rahul Kumar but they were also assaulted, further, Sudhanshu

          was confined in an unknown person’s house, but with the help

          of police, Sudhanshu was rescued and Rahul was taken to

          hospital for treatment. It is next alleges that Lobhi, Vinod,

          Niranjan, Bhuneshwar, Nagendra, Rajesh (petitioner), Pintu,

          Rohit, Piyush and Vikash along with unknown accused were

          involved in the occurrence. Further, Rahul Kumar died during

          the course of treatment.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

          the date of occurrence another FIR was lodged by one Vinod

          Yadav with regard to his son’s accident by a speeding

          motorcycle who eventually died and the said motorcycle

          belonged to Rahul Kumar. It is further submitted that since son

          of Vinod Yadav on account of an accident alleged to have been

          committed by Rahul as such villagers gather and might have

          assaulted him. It is thus submitted that there is two version of

          the same occurrence i.e. is one as narrated in the instant FIR and

          the one narrated by Vinod Yadav. It is also submitted that from

          perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR it would manifest

          that allegation of assault is general and omnibus in nature. It is

          next submitted that similarly situated co-accused Rohit Kumar

          had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6257 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
                                            3/4




          Misc. No. 68688 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by

          vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed by a coordianate Bench of

          this Court. It is further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory

          bail is granted the petitioner will cooperate in the investigation

          to prove his innocence.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let

          the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or

          surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released

          on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case

          is pending/Successor Court in connection with Kako P.S. Case

          No. 304 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under

          Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       7. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any

          application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the

          learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner, despite

          giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the

          investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required,

          the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6257 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
                                                        4/4




                      of the petitioner after recording reasons.

                                   8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the

                      Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad for his perusal.



                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
khushbu/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.