Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ravi Shankar (Mukhiya)versusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, directing release on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Summary

Ravi Shankar, a village Mukhiya, applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that three youths fired a weapon, causing the death of Manohar Sharma. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated based on a spy’s statement linking him to one of the accused. He had been in custody since 28 September 2025 and no material evidence connected him to the crime. After hearing both sides, the court held that the petitioner was eligible for bail and ordered his release on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner, who is not named in the FIR, is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
  • Whether the material gathered during investigation justifies continued detention.
  • Whether the duration of custody without substantive evidence warrants bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • false implication
  • criminal procedure
  • Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
  • Arms Act
  • chargesheet
  • custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91603 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2025 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Ravi Shankar (Mukhiya) S/o Mr. Prem Shankar Thakur R/o vill - Radhaur,
                 P.S.- Sursand, Distt.- Sitamarhi

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                                   Mr. Mudit Meet, Advocate
                                                   Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   01-04-2026                    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                   2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Dumra P.S. Case no. 462

                   of 2025 registered under sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the

                   Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that three accused persons aged about 20-25 years came on a

                   motorcycle and as a result of firing resorted to by one of them,

                   his cousin (chachera) brother Manohar Sharma sustained

                   serious injuries and on being taken to the hospital, was declared

                   dead.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                   submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He was
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91603 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation on the

                     statement of a spy to the effect that accused Ranjan Pathak used

                     to stay in the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that no

                     material has transpired in course of investigation to connect the

                     petitioner with the alleged crime. The petitioner is in custody

                     since     28.9.2025       and     undertakes         to   cooperate   in   the

                     investigation/trial. The cause of false implication of the

                     petitioner is his antecedents.

                                  5. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking

                     into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R.

                     the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the

                     petitioner being in custody since 28.9.2025 and chargesheet having

                     been submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to be

                     enlarged on bail in connection with Dumra P.S. Case no. 462 of 2025

                     on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with

                     two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

                     Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.


                                                 (Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.