Patna High Court
Ravindra Sahni @ Ravindra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Sahni, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code alleging kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor. He contended that he has a clean antecedent and was falsely implicated by the informant, highlighting a three‑day delay in filing the FIR and questioning how the victim was produced before police. The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and cooperates with the investigation, invoking Section 438(2) of the CrPC. It further directed that bail may be cancelled if the petitioner fails to cooperate, and ordered the order be communicated to the concerned police station.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused in a case under Section 366(A) IPC given the allegations and evidence.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the manner of victim production affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 366A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 366A IPC
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- bail conditions
- cooperation with investigation
- minor victim
- kidnapping
- sexual assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75402 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2022 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ravindra Sahni @ Ravindra Kumar S/o Surendra Sahni R/o Village-
Kodhipatti, P.S.- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Parwati Devi W/o Darab Das R/o Village- Manpur Ratnawali, P.S.-
Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pronoti Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 31.05.2022, the accused persons including the
petitioner enticed her minor daughter and took her somewhere
and thus, suspects that she might have been killed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75402 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
informant as there is dispute relating to passage between them.
It is also submitted that the informant herself produced the
victim on 05.06.2022 before the police and thereafter her
statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she
supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that
it absolutely does not stand to reason that how the informant
came to know where the victim was and how she was produced.
It is also submitted that the date of occurrence is 31.05.2022 and
the FIR was instituted on 03.06.2022, i.e., after a delay of three
days. It is next submitted that the delay in instituting the FIR
was utilized by the informant in concealing the victim so that
she could be produced when required and, accordingly, on
05.06.2022, i.e., two days after the institution of the FIR, the
victim was produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
at the cost of repetition that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation and will present himself as and when required by
the Investigating Officer of the case during the course of
investigation.
5. Learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75402 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
counsel for the petitioner, let petitioner, above named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J.-IV-cum-
Exclusive Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Sitamarhi in
connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.287 of 2022, subject
to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
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, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel
the bail bonds of the petitioner after recording reasons.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned court below.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…