Patna High Court
Ranjan Kumar @ BillaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Rani Talab PS Case No.206 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was present at a cricket match where indiscriminate firing injured three persons, and a co‑accused’s confessional statement named him. The petitioner contended he was not named in the FIR, the confessional statement lacked evidentiary value, and the injured victims identified other individuals, asserting his innocence and clean antecedent. The State argued the petitioner’s presence at the scene and the co‑accused’s naming of him made the bail request premature and likely to hinder investigation. The court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ordering a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposing compliance requirements. The order emphasized that the bail conditions do not prejudice the trial and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations and evidence.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused and the petitioner’s alleged presence at the scene constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90749 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar @ Billa S/O Dinesh Rai @ Dinesh Ray R/O Vill.- Srirampur
Tola,P.S- Bihta, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Muskan Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ruby, Adv.
For the Informant : Ms. Prerna Rishi, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Rani Talab P.S. Case No. 206 of 2025
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 109 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
stated that during a cricket match, some unknown criminals
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90749 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
opened indiscriminate firing, thereby causing injuries to three
persons, namely, Anjani Singh, Dharmendra Kumar and
Viswajeet Kumar. It has been alleged that all the three persons
were referred to Patna for better treatment and the FIR was
registered against unknown.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated at the
behest of the police. It has been submitted that the petitioner is
not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced in the
confessional statement of one Santosh Kumar, a co-accused,
which does not have any evidentiary value. It has further been
submitted that there is no specific allegation against the
petitioner rather his name is based on suspicion. It has also
been submitted that from the perusal of the case diary, it would
be evident that the injured persons had not named the petitioner
to have fired, in fact, in the viral video of the injured/Anjani
Kumar, it has come to surface that he has named two persons,
namely, Ganauri Yadav and Rajesh Yadav to have fired upon
him at the behest of the MLA. It has lastly been submitted that
the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90749 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and have
submitted that the petitioner was present at the place of
occurrence and was sated to be an accomplish of co-
accused/Santosh Kumar, who was apprehended by the police
during the course of investigation and he has specifically named
the petitioner. It has further been submitted that it is very pre-
mature stage and if the petitioner granted bail, he shall disrupt
the further investigation.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the
case is pending in connection with Rani Talab P.S. Case No. 206
of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the
following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90749 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation and if it is
found that he is trying to evade, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to take necessary action.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned
Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail
bond.
(v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation
of his bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed
for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…