Ravish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24313 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2024 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ravish Kumar Son of Kishundeo Singh @ Kishandev Singh Resident of village - Mathura, P.S.- Bidupur, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 23.06.2025 in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 484 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5) of BNS and Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.08.2024 at about 00.30 hrs. night the informant received secret information that Rohit Kumar who is the absconder accused of Bidupur P.S. Case No. 290/2023 is present at Dhabauli Railway Over-bridge for selling illegal arms and cartridges to the other accused persons namely Madhukant Kumar, Ravish Kumar, Rajeev Kumar and Vikash Sharma who are also present at the
2/4 place of occurrence. The police team raided the place and arrested one of them who disclosed his name as Rohit Kumar and other persons fled away. The said Rohit Kumar disclosed the name of other persons who have fled away as Madhukant, Ravish Kumar, Rajeev Kumar and Vikash Sharma. Upon search of Rohit Kumar two country made pistol and two live cartridges of 0.315 bore were recovered, accordingly, seizure list was prepared.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and it appears from the FIR and seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and recovery has been made from co-accused person, namely, Rohit Kumar and two country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Rohit Kumar and as per the allegation as alleged in the FIR, the apprehended co-accused person, namely, Rohit Kumar has disclosed that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but he managed to escape and petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is named in the
3/4 FIR and apart from that petitioner has antecedent of eight cases other than the present case but fairly submits that petitioner is on bail in all the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 484 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T