Allowed

Ranvir Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Feb 2026CR. MISC./5870/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by an accused named in an FIR alleging demand of ransom from a government contractor. The court noted the main allegation was against a co-accused, the dispute appeared compromised, and the petitioner had clean antecedents, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: to be enlarged on arrest/surrender within four weeks on Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties of like amount, subject to statutory conditions.

Ranvir Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5870 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria

¶3

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

¶4

Ranvir Yadav S/o Late Bhujangi Yadav R/o vill - Rohiyar, P.S.- Mansi, Distt.Khagaria, Bihar

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brajesh Sahay, Advocate Ms.Seema Srivastava, Advocate Ms.Amrita Kumari, Advocate Ms.Harshita, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 13-02-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 125 of 2025, G.R. No. 1535/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 352, 308(2), 351(2) and 351(3), 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’) and section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner is to demand ransom money from the informant who was a government contractor in Maa Katyayani temple and was engaged in

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5870 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026 2/3

¶17

construction work under the project of Tourism Department, Government of Bihar.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that thrust of allegation appears against co-accused Bharat Yadav and even as per FIR, cash of Rs. 20,000/- was received by him during course of occurrence. It is submitted that as petitioner is related with Bharat Yadav he was implicated with the present case. It is pointed out that the confusion between the parties now appears resolved and the dispute and differences also compromised for which a compromise petition jointly signed by the parties was filed before the court concerned, district – Khagaria. Petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of the fact as thrust of allegation is available against Bharat Yadav, where matter now appears compromised between the parties, coupled with the fact that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent, accordingly, above-

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5870 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026 3/3

¶22

named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/(ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1^st Class, Khagaria/concerned court in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 125 of 2025, G.R. No. 1535/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).

¶23

It is made clear that learned trial court must verify the criminal antecedent of this petitioner and if he found indulged in any criminal case contrary to his affidavit/ submission, the bail bond of the petitioner shall not be accepted.

¶24

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶25

Rajeev/-

¶26

U T

Ranvir Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranvir Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar @ Golu Vs The State of Bihar

Ramanand Yadav @ Mojo Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Babloo Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Bikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bablu Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar