Ravi Kumar Soni @ Ravi Thathera Vs The State of Bihar

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Malaypur P.S. Case No.04 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 109, 311, 317(2), 317(5) of the BNS and under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

¶17

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that some unknown miscreants have looted Rupees Fifty Lakhs from the informant.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that during course of investigation CCTV footage of the locality was put for identification and it is alleged that after the occurrence the accused persons had tea. It

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15186 of 2026(5) dt.18-06-2026 2/3

¶20

has further been stated that the brother of the petitioner was identified in the CCTV footage by the tea shop owner. The petitioner was apprehended and his confessional statement was recorded by police. From perusal of Paragraph ‘40’ of the case diary it will transpire that on the disclosure of this petitioner huge looted amount have been recovered from the house and fields. It has further been submitted that even from the perusal of the confessional statement of this petitioner it will transpire that he was not involved in the occurrence, rather his brother was involved in the occurrence and he has brought the looted amount to the house which he has kept in almirah. It has further been submitted that even if the confessional statement of this petitioner is taken to be true, then also only allegation against the petitioner is that he is the brother of one Rahul who is alleged to have participated in the occurrence and that on his instance he has put the looted money in almirah. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has not taken any share in the said amount as per the confessional statement. It has further been submitted that similarly situated co-accused Kashmir Kumar has been granted bail by this Cout and other accused have been granted bail by learned Co-ordinate Bench. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15186 of 2026(5) dt.18-06-2026 3/3

¶22

antecedent and he is in judicial custody since 13.01.2026.

¶23

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

¶24

for the State. It has been submitted that the petitioner was identified in the CCTV footage.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Malaypur P.S. Case No.04 of 2026.

¶26

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶27

durgesh/-

Ravi Kumar Soni @ Ravi Thathera v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Soni @ Ravi Thathera v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Murmu Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Mukhiya Vs The State of Bihar

Shobhanand Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Afaque @ Silti Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Ray Vs The State of Bihar