Ranvir Singh Yadav @ Ranbir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15488 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2026 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ====================================================== Ranvir Singh Yadav @ Ranbir Kumar Son of Late Ram Bilash Prasad Resident of Village - Gulab Bag, P.S. - Barh, Dist. - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Pandarak P. S. Case No.26 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 308(4), 103(1), 109(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of sixteen cases as would manifest from the supplementary affidavit, but then, petitioner was acquitted in ten cases, as such, as of now petitioner has antecedent of six cases and the informant alleges that his son with Nityanand were going on a motorcycle when they were intercepted by five named accused persons excluding the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15488 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026 2/3 petitioner and accused persons said despite extortion amount of Rs. Five lacs demanded by the petitioner, the same has not been given, on objection by his son Dharmraj, fired causing injury on head, thereafter Ashok fired causing injury on chest, but Nityanand managed to flee and when his son fell the accused persons assaulted him by bricks on his face and informed the petitioner that victim has been killed. Further, Nityanand disclosed about the occurrence, thus alleges that petitioner along with Karambir got his son killed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and came to be implicated by the informant who is not an eye witness to the occurrence rather based on disclosure made by Nitayanand, the FIR was instituted with the aforesaid allegation. It is further submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting, then petitioner is not the assailant of the deceased rather specific allegation of causing firearm injury to the deceased is against Dharmraj and Ashok.

5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that petitioner as of now has antecedent of six cases. It is also submitted that it does not appear probable that informant being father would have falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15488 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026 3/3 implicated the petitioner until the same was disclosed by Nityanand. It is also submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands admitting that son of the informant was killed and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. and also taking into consideration the antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T