Dismissed¶23

Abhishek Ranjan v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 May 2026CR. MISC./6647/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory/pre-arrest bail rejected by Patna High Court (Purnendu Singh, J., 12-05-2026) in CR. MISC. No.6647 of 2026 arising from Karpi P.S. Case No. 193 of 2025, Arwal (Bihar); offences under Ss. 333, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS; alleged assault on polling agent Sudama Kumar during election process; motive of political rivalry; obstruction of election process and interference with democratic process cited as grounds; eleven criminal antecedents held not per se a ground for rejection per Apex Court law; liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

No relief: prayer for pre-arrest bail refused. The petitioner was permitted to surrender before the learned District Court and seek regular bail, and the bail application stands disposed of. ¶23

Abhishek Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief: prayer for pre-arrest bail refused. The petitioner was permitted to surrender before the learned District Court and seek regular bail, and the bail application stands disposed of.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 193 of 2025 registered under Sections 333, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

On consideration of the rival submissions, and notwithstanding that mere involvement in several criminal cases is not a sufficient ground for rejection of bail, this Court found that the petitioner had actively participated in obstructing the election process and had tried to influence the polling agents by assaulting them, thereby interfering with the democratic process and undermining the democratic framework of the country; considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court (no precedent named in the judgment), this Court recorded that mere involvement in several criminal cases cannot be a sufficient ground for rejection of bail, and that the question of bail is required to be considered on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail refused - election-related violence. Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in Karpi P.S. Case No. 193 of 2025 (P.S. Karpi, Dist. Arwal) under Sections 333, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS for the alleged assault, along with other accused persons, on one Sudama Kumar for not extending support during the election process. Counsel urged that although the petitioner has eleven criminal antecedents, no cogent material collected in investigation connects him with the occurrence of 11.11.2025. The Court, adverting to the law laid down by the Apex Court that mere involvement in several criminal cases cannot be a sufficient ground for rejection of bail, nevertheless found that the petitioner had actively participated in obstructing the election process and had tried to influence the polling agents by assaulting them, thereby interfering with the democratic process and undermining the democratic framework of the country; considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, pre-arrest bail was declined, with liberty to surrender before the learned District Court and seek regular bail. Bail application disposed of. (Purnendu Singh, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6647 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2025 Thana- KARPI District- Arwal

¶3

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

¶4

Abhishek Ranjan S/o Late Santlal Singh @ Santlal Yadav R/O Vill.- Karwa Hankar, P.S- Karpi, Dist.- Arwal

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukul Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, APP. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 12-05-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 193 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

¶14

As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the petitioner, along with other accused persons, is alleged to have assaulted one Sudama Kumar for not extending support to the petitioner during the election process.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6647 of 2026(3) dt.12-05-2026 2/3

¶17

Although the petitioner has eleven criminal antecedents, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of bail. No cogent material has been collected in course of investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence which took place on 11.11.2025 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration on merits on the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R. On these grounds, the petitioner deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out. The motive behind the occurrence is also well established on account of political rivalry and the materials collected in course of investigation reveal that the petitioner had actively participated in obstructing the election process and assaulting the polling agent, namely Sudama Kumar, causing injuries to him, whereupon the police force immediately intervened at the place of occurrence. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner has not only interfered with the democratic rights of the people but also tried to influence the polling agent to act according to his wishes and desire. On these grounds, He submitted that the petitioner don’t deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6647 of 2026(3) dt.12-05-2026 3/3

¶20

Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court that mere involvement in several criminal cases cannot be a sufficient ground for rejection of bail, which is required to be considered on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected during investigation.

¶21

In the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner had actively participated in obstructing the election process and had also tried to influence the polling agents by assaulting them, thereby interfering with the democratic process and undermining the democratic framework of the country. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

¶22

The petitioner may surrender before the learned District Court and seek regular bail.

¶23

The bail application stands disposed of.

¶24

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶25

mantreshwar/-

¶26

U T

Abhishek Ranjan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Ranjan 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

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ramchandra Sah @ Ram Chandra Sah @ Ramchandar Sahu Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Kumar Yadav @ Mahesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ritesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Hari Krishna Mandal @ Hare Krisn Mandal Ram Vs The State of Bihar