Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79227 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna ====================================================== Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Rai S/O Late Ramashish Ray @ Late Ramashish Yadav R/o Vill.- Kothwan, P.S - Khagaul, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111(4), 111(6) and 111(7) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedents of 40 cases but then petitioner is acquitted in 30 cases and is in custody since 13.06.2025. It is further submitted that petitioner was made accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, dated 10.04.2025, wherein Kumar Gaurav (informant), a builder,
2/6 alleged that he received a call from Mobile No.7488332851 and the caller disclosed his name as Pinku Yadav brother of Ritlal and asked the informant to purchase construction material from him for his ongoing construction work and threatened that if he will not buy the construction material from him, then he will not be able to proceed with construction of his ongoing project. Further, the informant started purchasing construction material from him but no bill was provided, further, Niraj and Dheeraj used to come on the site of the informant with the material, next alleges that according to him, the price of the purchased material was Rs.19 lakhs but accused was demanding Rs.33 lakhs.
It is further alleged that the higher demand is basically in nature of extortion, next alleges that he received a call from Ritlal Yadav who asked the informant to come and meet him at his village, accordingly, Kumar Gaurav (informant) along with his partner met Ritlal and took time for payment. Further, his partner again got a call from Ritlal who threatened to make payment of Rs.30 lakhs, further, an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid and Ritlal was assured that rest amount, i.e., Rs.26 lakhs shall be paid after Deepawali or Chhath. Further, Ritlal made him sign on a stamp paper that he has taken loan of Rs.30 lakhs out of which Rs.
3/6 Rs.26 lakhs, which was being demanded by way of extortion, was not paid, hence, he started receiving threatening from different numbers, further, Dheeraj, Niraj, Shrawan along with others came and made the labourers working on the site leave, next alleges that one Sunil came and disclosed that since informant has entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing 15 Kaththas land in Ritlal's village, hence, he should meet him and he will fix the meeting, next alleges that Sunil is the man who deals with extortion money, further alleges that about 10 days back, brother-in-law of Ritlal, namely, Chiku came and threatened how he has purchased 15 Kathas of land in the village without permission of Ritlal, also disclosed that land owner from whom he purchased the land was killed by them and demanded extortion of Rs.10 lakhs, further alleges that he gave Rs.10 lakhs out of fear and also cleared the earlier due and he has recording of threats being given by Ritlal.
4. It is submitted that the instant petitioner was an accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, which was with regard to demand of extortion, as recorded hereinabove. It is next submitted that during course of investigation of Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025, certain additional facts came to the notice of the authorities based on which the superior officers
4/6 directed the subordinates to institute a separate FIR based on which the instant FIR came to be instituted in which the petitioner is seeking bail. It is submitted that the allegation in the instant FIR is that the informant alleges that accused persons including the petitioner along with others are part of an organized gang and demands ransom from real estate builders and businessmen by threatening them of dire consequences and, as such, has amassed huge wealth illegally. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why a second FIR came to be instituted when in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025 itself the allegations, as alleged in the instant FIR, could have been investigated. It is also submitted that in the year 2013, the E.D.
initiated an ECIR with respect to the properties of the petitioner, as mentioned at page 29 of the regular bail application and the E.D. after investigating the properties of the petitioner subsequently in the year 2018 instituted Special Case No.271 of 2018. The learned Senior Counsel asserts and submits that not a single property has been purchased by the petitioner in his name or in the name of his wife after 2013. It is also submitted that the case is political, as such, the petitioner came to be implicated.
5/6
5. Mr. Ajay Mishra, the learned APP vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appears to be attractive on the face of it but then the issue raised in the instant regular bail application cannot be adjudicated in the instant jurisdiction. It is submitted that if petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that as to why the instant FIR was instituted when the allegation against the petitioner could have been investigated in Khagaul P.S. Case No.129 of 2025 itself, the petitioner can move before an appropriate forum for seeking redressal of his grievance. It is next submitted that the present FIR has been instituted with an allegation that petitioner and others are involved in organized crime and have amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income.
It is also submitted that whether petitioner purchased any property after 2013 in his name or in the name of his wife or amassed wealth in the name of different persons can well be adjudicated in the trial. It is also submitted that from perusal of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, it would manifest that his criminal history started in the year 1996 and continued up to 2025. It is thus, submitted that in span of nearly 30 years, there is not a single year in which the petitioner has not been implicated in a criminal case.
6/6 is easy to submit that the case is political but then criminal antecedents cannot be ignored. It is also submitted that petitioner has not been granted bail in cases mentioned at serial nos. 38, 39 and 40 at para-33 of the regular bail application.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Khagaul P.S. Case No.171 of 2025, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-I-cum-Special Judge, MP/MLA, Patna.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T