Patna High Court
Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court declined to grant bail, finding that the seriousness of the organized‑crime allegations and the petitioner’s extensive criminal record outweigh any claim of political victimisation.
Summary
The petitioner, Ritlal Yadav, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 111(4), 111(6) and 111(7) of the B.N.S., 2023, alleging that the FIR was a duplicate of an earlier case and that the proceedings were politically motivated. The prosecution contended that the petitioner is part of an organized gang involved in extortion and has a long criminal history spanning three decades. The court examined whether the existence of a prior FIR precludes the filing of a new one and whether the petitioner’s alleged wealth and antecedents justify denial of bail. It also considered the relevance of the petitioner’s alleged political victimisation to the bail question. After evaluating the submissions, the court held that the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner’s criminal record warranted the continuation of custody. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the pending FIR and prior case.
- Whether the filing of a second FIR is permissible when similar allegations are already under investigation.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged political victimisation affects the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and alleged disproportionate wealth justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 111(4), 111(6), 111(7)
Subjects
- bail
- organized crime
- extortion
- political case
- duplicate FIR
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79227 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna
======================================================
Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Rai S/O Late Ramashish Ray @ Late Ramashish Yadav
R/o Vill.- Kothwan, P.S - Khagaul, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 26-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP 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 Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedents of 40 cases but
then petitioner is acquitted in 30 cases and is in custody since
13.06.2025. It is further submitted that petitioner was made
accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, dated
10.04.2025, wherein Kumar Gaurav (informant), a builder,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79227 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
2/6
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 material, next
alleges that according to him, the price of the purchased
material was Rs.19 lakhs but accused was demanding Rs.33
lakhs. It is further alleged that the higher demand is basically in
nature of extortion, next alleges 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, i.e., Rs.26 lakhs
shall be paid after Deepawali or Chhath. Further, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79227 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
3/6
Rs.26 lakhs, which was being demanded by way of extortion,
was not paid, hence, he 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 Kaththas 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 Kathas of land in the
village without permission of Ritlal, 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 he
gave Rs.10 lakhs out of fear and also cleared the earlier due and
he has recording of threats being given by Ritlal.
4. It is submitted that the instant petitioner was an
accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, which was with
regard to demand of extortion, as recorded hereinabove. It is
next submitted that during course of investigation of Khagaul
P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, certain additional facts came to the
notice of the authorities based on which the superior officers
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79227 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
4/6
directed the subordinates 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 consequences and,
as such, has amassed huge wealth illegally. The learned Senior
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 also submitted that in the year 2013, the E.D.
initiated an ECIR with respect to the properties of the petitioner,
as mentioned at page 29 of the regular bail application and the
E.D. after investigating the properties of the petitioner
subsequently in the year 2018 instituted Special Case No.271 of
2018. The learned Senior Counsel asserts and submits that not a
single property has been purchased by the petitioner in his name
or in the name of his wife after 2013. It is also submitted that
the case is political, as such, the petitioner came to be
implicated.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79227 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
5/6
5. Mr. Ajay Mishra, the learned APP vehemently
opposes the bail application and submits that the submissions
made by the learned Senior Counsel appears to be attractive on
the face of it 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
next 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 whether petitioner
purchased any property after 2013 in his name or in the name of
his wife or amassed wealth in the name of different persons can
well be adjudicated in the trial. It is also submitted that from
perusal of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, it would
manifest that his criminal history started in the year 1996 and
continued up to 2025. It is thus, submitted that in span of nearly
30 years, there is not a single year in which the petitioner has
not been implicated in a criminal case. It is also submitted that it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79227 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
6/6
is easy to submit that the case is political but then criminal
antecedents cannot be ignored. It is also submitted that
petitioner has not been granted bail in cases mentioned at serial
nos. 38, 39 and 40 at para-33 of the regular bail application.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made by the learned APP, 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 Khagaul P.S. Case No.171 of 2025, pending in
the court of learned A.C.J.M.-I-cum-Special Judge, MP/MLA,
Patna.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.