Ravis Singh @ Ravis Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90344 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- Sarbahada District- Gaya ====================================================== RAvis Singh @ Ravis Kumar S/o- Anant Singh R/v- Baliyari Ps- Sarbahda Dist- Gaya ji ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anil Kumar Roy For the State :
Mr.Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, F.I.R dated 08.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 238, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3⁄4 of D.P.Act, 1961.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant, Rajiv Kumar Rai alias Ram Sevak Rai, submitted a written complaint on 08.03.2025 before the Sarbahda S.H.O. stating that his daughter was married to Murari Singh as per Hindu customs and was residing at her matrimonial home, where a female child was born. It is alleged that thereafter the husband and in-laws demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and subjected the informant's daughter to
2/4 mental and physical cruelty, threatening to oust her if the demand was not met. Despite attempts at settlement, the dispute remained unresolved. On 05.03.2025, the informant received a photograph on his son's mobile alleging that his daughter had been murdered. On reaching her matrimonial home, the house was found locked. The informant suspects that his daughter was murdered by her husband and in-laws.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against this petitioner is general and omnibus, while this petitioner is residing at Mumbai and has no connection with day to day affairs either of the deceased or with his husband. It has next been submitted that the petitioner is younger brotherin-law of the deceased, and for the purpose of his livelihood, he is engaged with the private company at Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that other relatives being mother-in-law is extended the benefit of anticipatory bail, while the husband of the deceased has been extended the privilege of regular bail.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the allegations being levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus, and the petitioner is not staying with the
3/4 deceased and husband of the deceased at the time of incident in question while for the purpose of earning livelihood he is staying at Mumbai. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 A.C.J.M. IV, Gaya in connection with Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) abhishekkr/- U T