The high court was hearing the anticipatory petition filed by one Ravi Kumar Yadav, who was facing charges for the murder of a minor child residing in a hostel in Muzaffarpur, where the accused was running the said accommodation. 

A call, father’s visit and child’s death

The minor’s father claimed in this case that about five months back, his minor son, aged about 8 years, was admitted to Gyan Ganga Hostel, Muzaffarpur. He added that the hostel was run by the petitioner and allegedly he called him on Septemer 22, 2025, at 4 pm and informed that his son was unwell.

Justice Satyavrat Verma noted that the child died during treatment on October 4, 2025.

The father claimed that on September 22, 2025, at around 4 pm, the petitioner called him and informed him that his son was unwell. He said that when he reached the hostel the following morning, he noticed visible injury marks on the child’s face and found his condition deteriorating.

He further alleged that when he asked his son about the injuries, the child told him that a hostel “sir” (petitioner) had assaulted him a few days earlier and warned him not to tell his family, threatening further assault if he disclosed the incident.

The father further added that after this conversation, he started vomiting and was brought to a private hospital for treatment, but when his condition deteriorated, he was brought to another hospital on September 27, 2025. However, he died during treatment on October 4, 2025.

Arguments 

The petitioner was represented by advocate Sanjeev Ranjan, who submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the victim’s father. 

It was submitted that if the petitioner had assaulted the child, he would not have called the father himself and informed him that the boy was unwell.

It is added that if the child had been assaulted in the manner alleged in the FIR, in that event, the FIR would have been instituted instantly and not on October 5, 2025, which is after the death of the child. 

The petitioner further argued that if the assault had occurred in the manner alleged, the FIR would have been lodged immediately and not on October 5, 2025, a day after the child’s death.

Opposing the plea, Assistant Public Prosecutor Chandra Sen Prasad Singh argued that although the FIR was registered on October 5, 2025, the delay could not be treated as fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The prosecutor submitted that the child had visible injuries, was repeatedly vomiting and was undergoing treatment, and that one can well imagine the mental condition of a father trying to save his seriously ill son.