Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Ray @ Rahul RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Ray, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 303(2), 62 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1‑Ba), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, based on an informant’s claim that he aided in a theft of a buffalo. The petitioner argued that he has a clean record, was not arrested at the scene, and that the only evidence against him is a confessional statement by a co‑accused, which he contended lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the submissions and, considering the lack of direct arrest and the petitioner’s assurance to cooperate, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS and the condition that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioner fails to cooperate. The order also stipulated that the bail could be revoked if the investigating officer reports non‑cooperation. The petition was thus disposed by granting anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the BNSS given the allegations.
- Whether the confessional statement of the co‑accused is admissible as evidence for granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or obstruct the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑Ba), 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 303(2), 3(5), 482(2), 62
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- confessional statement
- arms act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18884 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2025 Thana- MANIGACHI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Ray @ Rahul Ray S/o Ram Ray @ Chikoo Ray R/o ward no. 5,
vill - Chanaur, P.S.- Manigachchi, Distt.- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Baleshwar Kamat
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 62
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 25(1-B)a,
26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 18-8-2025 at midnight, three accused persons
were trying to commit theft of his buffalo, but on alarm raised
by him, accused started fleeing but Abhishek was apprehended,
who disclosed the name of the petitioner and Pramod as his
accomplice, accordingly police was called and Abhishek was
handed over to the police from whose possession a cartridge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18884 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
was recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot and his name
transpired in the confessional statement of Abhishek in police
custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also
submitted that allegation of recovery of cartridge is from
Abhishek. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand
to reason that as to why Abhishek would have been carrying a
cartridge, when no gun was recovered, it is thus submitted that it
appears that in order to give seriousness to the case, the said
allegation is alleged. It is also submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will
not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove
his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18884 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Manigachchi P.S. Case No. 124 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner,
despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the
investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…