Patna High Court
Ravi Ranjan RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient material to justify continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Ranjan Rai, was arrested in connection with the murder of Abhishek Kumar, initially charged under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S. and later under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5). The informant, the victim's father, first lodged a missing report and two days later filed an application naming twelve accused, including the petitioner, without explaining how he identified them. The petitioner’s name does not appear in any confessional statements of co‑accused, nor is he captured in CCTV footage of the hotel where the victim was last seen. The petitioner argued that there is no direct evidence linking him to the crime, while the State contended that the informant’s later application implicates him. Considering the lack of substantive material against the petitioner, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to his cooperation with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in the murder case given the absence of direct evidence linking him to the offence.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 137(2), 140(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal procedure
- evidentiary insufficiency
- B.N.S. sections
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79946 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-872 Year-2025 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Rai Son of Late Sikindra Rai Resident of Village- Hanuman
Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran at Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case initially registered for
the offence punishable under Section-137(2) of B.N.S. in which, later
on, Sections-140(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. was also
added.
3. The informant is father of the deceased, Abhishek
Kumar. He lodged fardbeyan on 24-06-2025 stating therein that her
son, Abhishek Kumar, ,a student of B.A., was contacted him through
mobile phone in the night of 23-06-2025 and thereafter, his mobile
set was found switched off. The informant asked Nitesh Kumar who
was room-mate of the informant’s son. Then Nitesh Kumar apprised
the informant that the co-accused Ayush Kumar had taken the
deceased in his hotel, Rajepur and thereafter, the mobile phone of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79946 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
Ayush Kumar was switched off. After two days of lodging of the
fardbeyan, a second application was filed by the informant disclosing
the name of 12 accused persons including the petitioner with an
allegation that they all, brutally assaulted his son and threw the dead
body in the river.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
informant lodged a missing report of his son and two days
subsequent thereof, he filed an application disclosing the name of 12
accused persons alleging that they brutally killed his son without
disclosing the source of his knowledge. Learned counsel has
submitted that the informant though named this petitioner in second
application but he did not name this petitioner in his re-statement
which contained in paragraph-6 of the case diary. The co-accused
Nitesh Kumar who apprised that Ayush took the deceased on his
motorcycle but he has also not named this petitioner which transpires
from paragraph-8 of the case diary. The co-accused Ayush Kumar
rendered his confessional statement but he also did not name this
petitioner. Ayush and the deceased were seen in Hotel, Rajepur in
CCTV footage but the petitioner was not seen in that footage also. In
the entire case diary, there is nothing against the petitioner. He is
under custody since 27-06-2025.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant
and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail by
submitting that all the 12 persons who committed brutal murder of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79946 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
the deceased, have been named in the subsequent petition.
6. The petitioner was not seen in CCTV footage. His name
is not figured in confessional statement of the co-accused. No source
of knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence has been disclosed by
the informant in his subsequent application. The petitioner is in
custody since 27-06-2025.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let
the petitioner named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-XVI, Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyapur P.S.
Case No. 872 of 2025 with condition that the petitioner shall
cooperate with the trial of the case and make himself available as and
when required by the court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.