Patna High Court
RAvis Singh @ Ravis KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations insufficiently specific to justify denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravis Singh, a younger brother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a murder investigation (Sarbahda PS Case No. 20 of 2025) involving alleged cruelty and murder of the woman’s daughter. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was implicated in offences under Sections 80, 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the allegations were general and omnibus, that he resides in Mumbai and has no day‑to‑day involvement with the deceased or her husband, and that other relatives had already been granted bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The court, noting the lack of direct connection and the vague nature of the accusations, exercised its discretion under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus
- Whether the petitioner’s residence in Mumbai and lack of direct involvement justify bail under Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 238, 3(5), 80
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- D.P. Act, 1961 — s. ¾
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- general allegations
- murder investigation
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- D.P. Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90344 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- Sarbahada District- Gaya
======================================================
RAvis Singh @ Ravis Kumar S/o- Anant Singh R/v- Baliyari Ps- Sarbahda
Dist- Gaya ji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Roy
For the State : Mr.Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, F.I.R dated
08.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 80, 238, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections ¾ of D.P.Act, 1961.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant, Rajiv
Kumar Rai alias Ram Sevak Rai, submitted a written complaint
on 08.03.2025 before the Sarbahda S.H.O. stating that his
daughter was married to Murari Singh as per Hindu customs and
was residing at her matrimonial home, where a female child was
born. It is alleged that thereafter the husband and in-laws
demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and subjected the informant’s daughter to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90344 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
mental and physical cruelty, threatening to oust her if the
demand was not met. Despite attempts at settlement, the dispute
remained unresolved. On 05.03.2025, the informant received a
photograph on his son’s mobile alleging that his daughter had
been murdered. On reaching her matrimonial home, the house
was found locked. The informant suspects that his daughter was
murdered by her husband and in-laws.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations against this petitioner is general and omnibus, while
this petitioner is residing at Mumbai and has no connection with
day to day affairs either of the deceased or with his husband. It
has next been submitted that the petitioner is younger brother-
in-law of the deceased, and for the purpose of his livelihood, he
is engaged with the private company at Mumbai. It is the case of
the petitioner that other relatives being mother-in-law is
extended the benefit of anticipatory bail, while the husband of
the deceased has been extended the privilege of regular bail.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the allegations being levelled against the petitioner is
general and omnibus, and the petitioner is not staying with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90344 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
deceased and husband of the deceased at the time of incident in
question while for the purpose of earning livelihood he is
staying at Mumbai. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant
the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned A.C.J.M. IV, Gaya in connection with
Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90344 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…