Ravi Kumar Singh @ Ravi Singh Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35636 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-352 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran

======================================================

Ravi Kumar Singh @ Ravi Singh S/o Late Rajbanshi Singh R/o village - Mathurapur, P.S.- Turkauliya, Distt.- East Champaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 01-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case no.352 of 2025 registered under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the land purchased by him from one Rajnish Kumar Nirala has been sold by the accused persons including the petitioner, thus leading to the instant FIR.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case wherein the allegations are one of purely civil dispute. The petitioner and the vendor of the informant namely Rajnish Kumar Nirala are co-

¶11

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35636 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026 2/3

¶12

sharers and belong to the same family between whom partition suit etc. are going on in the Court below. The matters arise out of the immovable property which are subject matter of the said partition suit. The proper remedy for the informant was to file appropriate suit in the learned Court below for cancellation of the sale deed, if any. Further referring to the statement made in paragraph no.6 of the petition which gives the description of the lands sold by the petitioner, learned counsel submits that the boundary of the land sold by the petitioner and that of the informant are distinct and different. The petitioner is in custody since 9.2.2026 and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

¶13

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that besides there being direct allegation against the petitioner, even on earlier occasion he has sold similar pieces of land belonging to others. As such, it is not a case for grant of bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the relationship of the petitioner and the vendor of the informant being co-sharers together with the nature of dispute and the petitioner having remained in custody

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35636 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026 3/3

¶16

since 9.2.2026, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case no.352 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran.

¶17

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶18

Saurabh/-

¶19

U T

Ravi Kumar Singh @ Ravi Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Singh @ Ravi Singh 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

Nikhat @ Nikhat Parveen Vs The State of Bihar

Surjeet Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ranju Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Afzal Rayeen Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Kumar @ Sultha @ Ranjan Rajak Vs The State of Bihar

Jiwchh Singh Vs The State of Bihar