Ravi Ranjan Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan, APP Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Adv ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 24-06-2026

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶14

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bahoranpur PS Case No. 15 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶15

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in the instant anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the learned district court rejected the anticipatory bail of the petitioner holding that the same is not maintainable in view of peculiar facts of the case. It is further

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39371 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 2/3

¶17

submitted that informant alleges that on 4-3-2026 at 9 PM, the petitioner, Vishal and Krishna along with three unknown accused came and started abusing and threatening, on objection petitioner and Vishal fired but the firing made by the petitioner caused injury to the informant on his arm. It is next submitted that petitioner along with Vishal and Krishna were arrested by the police and were produced before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate finding the case to be suspicious released the petitioner and other two accused on PR bonds of Rs. 20,000/- with a direction that they should seek bail. It is further submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records that a surrender-cum-bail petition on behalf of the petitioner was filed on 9-3-2026. It is thus submitted that it appears that after the petitioner was released on PR bond, he filed surrender-cum-bail application on 9-3-2026. It is further submitted that despite such clear recording in the order impugned about filing of surrender-cum-bail petition by the petitioner on 9-3-2026, the petitioner in the instant anticipatory bail application has not even remotely whispered that whether petitioner had filed the aforesaid application or not. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner was arrested, was produced before the learned Magistrate, was released on PR

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39371 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 3/3

¶19

bond and thereafter the petitioner filed surrender-cum-bail application, as such the anticipatory bail application was rightly held not maintainable by the learned district court.

¶20

4. Learned appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that petitioner was released on PR bond and thereafter surrender-cum-bail application was filed before the learned District Court.

¶21

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the informant, thus finds no merit in the instant anticipatory bail application as such the same is dismissed.

¶22

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶23

Sumit/-

¶24

U T

Ravi Ranjan Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ranjan Thakur v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Yadav @ Vikash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ramchandra Prasad Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Ram Sah @ Santosh Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Bihul Yadav @ Bidhur Yadav @ Ravinder Yadav @ Vidur Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Khagesh Sah @ Khagesh Chandra Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Bittu Kumar @ Shiv Shankar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar