No Relief for the Accused in Thakurgaon and Pithoria Police Station Cases; Court Cites Seriousness of Charges and Criminal History
Ranchi, November 5, 2026: In a setback for Birm Ram alias Arvind Ji, accused of demanding extortion money while posing as a commander of the banned extremist organisations TPC (Tritiya Prastuti Committee) and TPSC, the court in Ranchi has rejected his bail pleas in two separate cases. Vacation Judge Debashish Mohapatra, hearing the matters at the Judicial Commissioner's Court, declined to grant bail after considering the seriousness of the allegations, the accused's alleged criminal history and the current status of the cases. The accused has been in judicial custody since June 5, 2026.
The first case relates to Thakurgaon Police Station Case No. 36/25. Birm Ram has been booked under Section 387 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment (CLA) Act. According to complainant Anand Tirkey, he received a threatening message on his mobile phone on January 23, 2024. The message allegedly threatened military action if he failed to provide documents related to a piece of land. The complainant also stated that Rohit Tirkey, a resident of the village, had received a phone call from TPSC on January 21.
According to the complainant, the land dispute is pending before the Jharkhand High Court under WPC No. 839/2023. He suspected that threats were being issued at the behest of certain middlemen over the land dispute. The second case relates to Pithoria Police Station Case No. 85/24, in which the accused faces charges under Sections 385 and 387 of the BNS and Section 17 of the CLA Act. The complainant, Prakash Kumar, is involved in the business of buying and selling land. He alleged that he received WhatsApp calls from mobile number 8101612912 on June 24 and 25, 2024, demanding extortion money.
The caller allegedly identified himself as Arvind Ji, a TPC commander, and threatened the complainant with serious consequences if the demanded amount was not paid. During the bail hearing, the defence counsel claimed that the accused was innocent, was not named in the FIR and that no incriminating material had been recovered from him. In the Pithoria case, the defence further argued that the mobile number allegedly used for making the extortion calls did not belong to the accused and that he had been implicated on the basis of the confessional statements of co-accused persons.
The prosecution opposed the bail pleas, citing the seriousness of the allegations. After hearing arguments from both sides, Vacation Judge Debashish Mohapatra declined to grant relief to the accused and rejected his bail applications in both cases. Birm Ram continues to remain in judicial custody.
