Ganesh RayversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11724 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-714 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ganesh Ray, S/o Rajendra @ Raj Narayan Ray @ Rajnandan Ray R/o
                  Village - Nakta Diyara, P.S - Digha, District - Patna
           2.    Dinesh Ray, S/o Rajendra @ Raj Narayan Ray @ Rajnandan Ray R/o
                 Village - Nakta Diyara, P.S - Digha, District - Patna
           3.    Dharamveer Yadav @ Dhanveer Ray, S/o Rajendra @ Raj Narayan Ray @
                 Rajnandan Ray R/o Village - Nakta Diyara, P.S - Digha, District - Patna

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                                  Ms. Priya, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-02-2026                   At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner no.3,

                   namely, Dharamveer Yadav @ Dhanveer Ray submits that

                   during the pendency of the application, the petitioner no.3 has

                   been apprehended by the police and as such, the present

                   application against the petitioner no.3 has become infructuous.

                                 2. In view of the submission made by the learned

                   counsel for the petitioner no.3, the application stands dismissed

                   as withdrawn as having become infructuous.

                                 3. Now the present application only survives for

                   petitioner no.1, namely, Ganesh Ray and petitioner no.2,

                   namely, Dinesh Ray.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11724 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/4




                       4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 and 2

          and learned A.P.P. for the State.

                       5. Petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely, Ganesh Ray and

          Dinesh Ray respectively apprehend their arrest in connection

          with Digha P.S. Case No.714 of 2025 registered for the offences

          under Sections 103, 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

          2023.

                       6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against

          the petitioners are that they have been demanding Rs.5,00,000/-

          and a motorcycle as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the

          same, they have tortured the daughter of the informant. It is

          further alleged that the named accused persons, including the

          petitioners, with common intention had strangulated the

          daughter of the informant to death for non-fulfillment of dowry

          and even burnt her dead body.

                       7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this

          is one of those peculiar cases where the entire immediate family

          members of the deceased, i.e., the husband, father-in-law and

          mother-in-law have not been made parties, rather, the

          petitioners, being the cousin brothers-in-law have been made

          parties who have been separate in mess for the last 20 years. It

          has further been submitted that the occurrence is of 07.09.2025,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11724 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                            3/4




          however, the FIR was registered after a delay of eight days on

          15.09.2025 in a very pre-planned manner, as the petitioners have

          a long-standing dispute with the in-laws of the deceased. It has

          next been submitted that in fact it is the husband of the deceased

          and his parents who were instrumental in getting this forged and

          fabricated FIR lodged against these petitioners based on a

          concocted story of demand of dowry. It has lastly been

          submitted that the petitioners carry clean antecedents.

                       8. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer

          for anticipatory bail.

                       9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

          and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the

          petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely, Ganesh Ray and Dinesh Ray

          respectively be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of

          arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a

          period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of

          Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below

          where the case is pending/successor court in connection with

          Digha P.S. Case No.714 of 2025, subject to the conditions as

          laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

          Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11724 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                                          4/4




                        as well as subject to the following conditions:-

                                        (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
                                        close relative.
                                        (ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in
                                        Court on each date of the trial.
                                        (iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
                                        violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
                                        petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
                                        concerned.
                                        (iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar
                                        nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at
                                        liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
                                        (v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
                                        antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it
                                        is found that the petitioners have concealed their
                                        criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
                                        cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However,
                                        the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
                                        mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
                                        in the name of verification.

                                     10. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is

                        allowed.

                                     11. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made

                        in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.



                                                 (Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-

U         T