Patna High Court
Rikku Yadav @ Ravan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, no overt act is attributable to the petitioner and therefore bail is warranted.
Summary
The petitioner, Rikku Yadav, sought bail for offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act relating to a shooting that allegedly killed the brother of an informant. Although the FIR does not name him, the prosecution linked him to the crime through a call detail record and a co-accused’s confessional statement, while the main alleged shooters were identified as Md. Monajir and Md. Mojahir. The petitioner argued that no overt act could be attributed to him and that the investigation was already completed with a charge‑sheet filed. The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the CDR and confessional statement raised sufficient suspicion. The court found that, prima facie, no overt act was attributable to the petitioner and, given the completed investigation, ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under the CrPC and the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, based solely on CDR and a co‑accused’s statement, constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail.
- Whether the completion of investigation and filing of charge‑sheet affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for the offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act in the absence of an overt act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 35
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109 read with 3(5), 126(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 437(3)
Subjects
- bail
- prima facie evidence
- firearms
- homicide
- land dispute
- call detail record
- charge-sheet
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85460 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2025 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
Rikku Yadav @ Ravan Kumar, S/o Bachchelal Yadav, R/o Village-
Gobargardha, Ward No.- 8 P.S. - Saharsa, District - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.332 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 352, 109 read with
3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’)
but, later on, Section 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act and
Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. were added in the FIR.
3. The accused/petitioner is not named in the FIR and
is in custody since 19.03.2025.
4. As per FIR, petitioner along with other named and
unknown co-accused persons shot dead the brother of the
informant on 15.03.2025 at about 4:40 PM.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85460 of 2025(2) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
submitted that from facial perusal of the FIR itself, it can be
gathered safely that prima facie no overt act appears attributed
to this petitioner. It is submitted that the name of this petitioner
transpired in this case merely on the basis of call detail report
(C.D.R.) of the mobile of this petitioner. It is submitted that the
thrust of allegation as to cause fatal firearm injury is available
against co-accused persons namely, Md. Monajir and Md.
Mojahir. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
investigation of this case is already completed, for which,
charge-sheet has been submitted and, as such, there is no
chance of tampering with the evidence. The petitioner found
involved in four more criminal cases, where he is on bail.
6. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel
appearing for the informant while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that the petitioner was named through confessional
statement of apprehended co-accused. Beside that, it is
submitted that suspicion against petitioner further raised out of
C.D.R. It is also pointed out that the occurrence took place in
the background of land dispute.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as prima facie no overt act appears to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85460 of 2025(2) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
attributed qua petitioner, rather thrust of allegation as to cause
fatal firearm injury is available against co-accused Md. Monajir
and Md. Mojahir, coupled with the fact that investigation of this
case is already completed, where petitioner remains in custody
since 19.03.2025, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, is
directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Saharsa in connection S. Tr. No.277 of
2025 arising out of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.332 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’)/under Section
480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short
‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…