Patna High Court
Ramagya RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
Summary
Petitioners Ramagya Ray and Raushan Ray sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with Panapur Police Station Case No. 311 of 2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that a group of 14 persons, including the petitioners, assaulted an informant and his nephew, but the petitioners contended that the specific assault allegations were directed only at three other individuals and that they were falsely implicated in a land‑dispute related altercation. The State opposed the bail. The Court examined the lack of specific allegations against the petitioners, their clean antecedent, and the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail. It granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., subject to conditions such as surety, presence in court, and verification of antecedents. The order clarified that its observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations against them
- Whether the petitioners are specifically implicated in the offences alleged in Case No. 311 of 2025
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure
- B.N.S.S.
- false implication
- land dispute
- assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11776 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Ramagya Ray Son of Late Paltu Ray Resident of Village- Bijauli (Bijili), 37,
Ps- Panapur, Dist- Saran
2. Raushan Ray Son of Umesh Ray Resident of Village- Bijauli (Bijili), 37, Ps-
Panapur, Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Sandesh Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Panapur P.S. Case No. 311 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 324(2),
351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case, it has been alleged that
14 members of the petitioner's side, variously armed started
assaulting the informant and others. It has been specifically
mentioned about three persons to have assaulted the informant
and his nephew.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11776 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
petitioners have falsely been implicated in a general and
omnibus allegation of assault. He further submits that there is no
specific allegation levelled against the petitioners, rather the
allegations of a specific assault has been made against three
accused persons, namely Saroj Rai, Ritik Rai, and Umesh Rai. It
has further been submitted that for the same incident, a counter
case was lodged on behalf of the petitioners being Panapur P.S.
Case No. 315 of 2025 and in fact, one Lalbabu Rai had received
grievous injury in the said altercation. It has next been
submitted that on account of land dispute, an altercation had
taken place and the petitioners in defense had fought with the
aggressors. It has lastly been submitted that there is no injury
reference to the injuries sustained by the persons, however, the
specific allegations are against others and the petitioners carry
clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11776 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
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 Panapur P.S. Case
No. 311 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. 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 his 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 antecedents, the court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11776 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond
of the petitioner. 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.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…