Patna High Court
Ravi Shankar (Mukhiya)versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The petition for regular bail was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Shankar, was arrested for alleged murder of an informant's brother, allegedly conspired with co‑accused and recorded a telephonic conversation about the crime. He had prior criminal antecedents and a confessional statement admitting conspiracy. The petition sought regular bail under Sections 103(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court examined the investigation material, the confession, the audio evidence, and the petitioner’s criminal history. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the confession, and the risk of tampering with evidence, the court rejected the bail application. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial within one year.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a murder case involving Sections 103(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable (BNS) — s. 103(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- arms act
- criminal antecedents
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91459 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2025 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ravi Shankar (Mukhiya) S/o Mr. Prem Shankar Thakur R/o Village- Radhaur,
P.s- Sursand, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur , Advocate
Mr. Purushottam Kumar , Advocate
Ms. Kajal , Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar , APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 13-05-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the
State .
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 103(2) and 61(2) of the
BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3 . According to the prosecution case, the petitioner,
along with the other named co-accused persons, is alleged to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91459 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
have killed the informant’s brother by firing a gunshot.
4. On perusal of records as well as paragraph 173 of
the Case Diary, it has come to light that this petitioner, namely,
Ravishankar Mukhia was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody. Thereafter, he in his confessional statement which was
recorded by Sub-Inspector Vimlesh Kumar Singh of Dumra
Police Station, in which he admitted that he conspired with
Ranjan Kumar Pathak and other associates at his residence to
plan the murder of the deceased, Madan Kumar Singh. He
further disclosed that immediately following the execution of
the murder, he was informed of the shooting on telephone; upon
his inquiry regarding whether any mobile phones were left at the
crime scene or not, then one Ranjan Pathak assured him that
they do not carry mobile phones during such operations and
executed the crime after conducting recce with associates.
Consequently, this petitioner, Ravishankar advised co-accused
Ranjan Pathak to change his SIM card. The audio recording of
the aforementioned conversation was recovered from the mobile
phone seized from this petitioner, who subsequently admitted
that the recording contains the telephonic exchange between
him and co-accused Ranjan Pathak regarding the commission of
the alleged offence . Petitioner has got twelve criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91459 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
antecedents.
5. Considering the materials collected during
investigation, conduct of petitioner, criminal antecedents and
other circumstances of case, prayer for regular bail of this
petitioner is rejected. However, since petitioners are in custody
since 06.11.2025 , learned Trial Court is directed to expedite and
conclude the trial, within the period of one year from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.