Patna High Court
Ravi Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because no specific overt act or concrete allegation against the petitioner was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving the alleged death of a 16‑year‑old girl and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner assisted the main accused, Deepak Kumar, by providing a hotel room, but the FIR does not name the petitioner and no specific overt act against him was identified. The petitioner’s counsel argued that there is no evidence of his participation in the crime, the post‑mortem shows no external injuries, and he has a clean antecedent. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner was an accomplice in the crime against a minor. The court, noting the absence of any overt act or specific allegation against the petitioner, granted anticipatory bail subject to monetary and procedural conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS. The order also stipulated that any breach of bail conditions could lead to cancellation, and clarified that its observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person not named in the FIR but alleged to have assisted the main accused in a POCSO offence.
- Whether the absence of specific overt acts or evidence against the petitioner warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 482, 65(1), 66/3(5)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- POCSO
- accomplice liability
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7486 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-505 Year-2025 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Kumar S/o Rajkishor Prasad Resident of - Bhaisawan, P.S -
Masaurhi, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajay Mistri S/o Ramji Mistri R/o Village - Mehndipur, P.S - Ghosi, District -
Jehanabad
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Aditi Medha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 21-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest
in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2025
instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1),
66/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 4
and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
given his farbeyan stating that his daughter Neha Kumari aged
about 16 years left her house and did not come back. It is
alleged that the informant got a call from the PMCH, Patna
reporting that his daughter has died. It is further alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7486 of 2026(5) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
when he reached PMCH, Patna he saw a boy standing there,
who disclosed his name as Deepak Kumar, who disclosed that
daughter of the informant died due to excessive bleeding.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has
transpired during the course of investigation and the reference
has been made in the supervision report where the name of the
petitioner has first surfaced stating only that he had come to the
hotel where the said Deepak Kumar had gone to take a room
and he assisted in providing the room to Deepak Kumar. It has
been submitted that there is no specific allegation of overt act
against the petitioner even during the course of investigation
and from the perusal of the post-mortem report, it would be
evident that there are no external injuries which would go on to
show that any force was used against the victim. Lastly, it has
been submitted that the petitioner carries clean antecedent.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant/O.P. No. 2 as well as the learned APP appearing on
behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and have submitted that the
petitioner should not be released on bail especially for the fact
that he was an accomplice of the main accused Deepak Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7486 of 2026(5) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
It has been submitted that the petitioner had also assisted the
said Deepak Kumar in committing the crime against a minor
child and, therefore, he should not be granted liberty of
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts aforesaid and especially
taking into account the fact that neither the informant nor during
the course of investigation, no specific overt act has come
against the petitioner, he is directed to be released on bail, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Session Judge-6-cum-Spl. Judge-1, POCSO, Patna in
connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS and
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will
be a close relative of the petitioner
and the other shall be a local resident;
(ii) the petitioner will
remain present on each and every
date fixed by the Court below, if so
required by the learned Trial Court
and shall cooperate in the
investigation;
(iii) in case of absence on
two consecutive dates or in violation
of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7486 of 2026(5) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
of the petitioner will liable to be
cancelled by the Court concerned;
(iv) the Court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the
petitioner and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedent,
the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bonds of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance
of bail bonds in terms of the above
mentioned order shall not be delayed
for purpose of the same on in the
name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.