Patna High Court
Pintu Kumar Ray @ Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that Singasan Ray is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the CrPC as the FIR does not specifically allege his participation in the alleged offences.
Summary
The petitioners, Pintu Kumar Ray and his father Singasan Ray, filed anticipatory bail applications in connection with FIR No. 583 of 2025 alleging assault and robbery. The first petitioner withdrew his application, while the second sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the FIR only implicated him by association with his son, without any specific allegation of his participation. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences listed in the FIR. The court examined the allegations and noted that no direct act was ascribed to Singasan Ray, finding the implication to be tenuous. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail to Singasan Ray, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, with conditions for surrender within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the father of the alleged assailant, Singasan Ray, is entitled to anticipatory bail despite being implicated in the FIR without specific allegations of participation.
- Whether the nature of the offences alleged in the FIR justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked to grant anticipatory bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure Code
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- assault
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1286 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-583 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
======================================================
1. Pintu Kumar Ray @ Pintu Kumar Son of Singasan Ray R/o Village -
Senduari, P.S. - Marhaura, District - Saran at Chapra.
2. Singasan Ray Son of Late Dhaneshar Ray R/o Village - Senduari, P.S. -
Marhaura, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the defects as pointed out by the Office shall be removed during
the course of the day.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners after some
arguments seeks permission to withdraw the present anticipatory
bail application with respect to petitioner no. 1.
5. Permission is accorded.
6. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends his arrest in a
case registered for the offences punishable under Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1286 of 2026(3) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that accused persons including the petitioners
came to purchase straw on which he said that straw has been
sold, thereafter the accused persons started abusing and even
assaulted him on objection, Kundan assaulted him
indiscriminately by knife causing injury on hands, feet and head
on orders of Pintu, while Manish and Ranjeet took his chain and
accused threatened not to institute a case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 2 has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant being father of Pintu, it is next submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR it would
manifest that informant alleges that Kundan assaulted him by
knife causing injury on various part of his body on orders of
Pintu but then no specific allegation of assault is alleged against
the petitioner no. 2 who is father of Pintu. It is next submitted
that since petitioner no. 2 is father of Pintu hence he came to be
implicated without any overt act being alleged against him.
9. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1286 of 2026(3) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
10. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner no. 2, namely,
Singasan Ray, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Marhaurah P.S. Case No. 583 of 2025 subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…