Ravindra Singh @ Ravindar Singh @ Rabo Singh @ Baba v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66942 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2025 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda ====================================================== Ravindra Singh @ Ravindar Singh @ Rabo Singh @ Baba S/O Late Yugal Singh Resident of Village- Puri, Police Station- Giriyak, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-09-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 352, 351(2), 79, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he received an information on 18.07.2025 at 5.00 P.M. that some persons have consumed poison in an orchard near Kali temple, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and saw that five persons have consumed poison and the villagers have taken the injured to the hospital, further at the place of occurrence, Satyam, a 10 year old boy was also found,
2/5 who was brought to the police station and he disclosed that the persons who consumed poison are his family members, further the S.H.O. came and recorded the statement of injured Soni Devi in his mobile at the hospital, who stated that they have a cloth shop and for starting the shop, they had taken loan of Rs.3 lacs from Ajay and Rs.2 lacs from Dharmendra, the priest of Kali temple had introduced them to Ajay and Dharmendra, further for the last one month, Ajay and Dharmendra used to come to her house and used to abuse and torture them, further the priest had brought them to Pawapuri and got them implicated and also disclosed that her elder brother-in-law Ghanshyam got their land registered in the name of his wife, hence out of frustration, the family consumed poison, further two minor girls died during the course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the injured were known to the petitioner and the injured were having a cloth shop and they were in need of money, as such they got loan of Rs. 2 lacs from Dharmendra and Rs.3 lacs from Ajay but then it appears that the money could not be returned, as such the persons, who had given the loan, used to come to the house of the injured and the family members
3/5 perhaps were not in a position to bear the insult. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that might be one of the reasons for the family to consume poison but then from perusal of the allegation, as alleged in the FIR, it would also manifest that Soni also disclosed before the S.H.O. that her elder brotherin-law grabbed their property and got a sale deed executed with respect to a piece of land in the name of his wife which also frustrated Soni Devi and her family members.
It is submitted that as far as this petitioner is concerned, he is priest of Kali temple and the family of Soni was known to the petitioner and as such the petitioner introduced the family to Ajay and Dharmendra, who gave loan and when the loan was not repaid, they might have gone to the house of the injured for seeking their money back, which perturbed them apart from the fact that the injured family were also perturbed by the act of elder brother-in-law of Soni, who had grabbed their property. It is next submitted that in the nature of allegation, as alleged in the FIR, even offence of abatement is also not made out against the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
4/5 the informant submits that though in the FIR, it is not alleged that petitioner was also a partner of Soni and her family members in the cloth shop but then during the course of investigation, it has been disclosed that petitioner being a priest was also a partner in the cloth shop of Soni and it was he, who had brought them to Pawapuri and introduced to Ajay and Dharmendra, who gave them loan and they used to come to the house of the injured family for seeking their money back and when the same was not being returned they used to abuse, which became unbearable but then fairly submits that even the land of the family of the injured was grabbed by the elder brother-inlaw and a sale deed was executed in the name of his wife, which had also perturbed the family but then it was petitioner, who was instrumental in introducing Soni and her family to Ajay and Dharmendra, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even presuming what has been alleged during the course of investigation to be true without admitting, then also, it is not the case of the prosecution that because of petitioner, the family committed suicide rather it appears that since the property of the family of the injured was grabbed by own elder brother-in-law of Soni that perhaps triggered the occurrence.
5/5 not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Giriyak (Pawapuri) P.S. Case No.322/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T