Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Indradev Ray @ Indradeo RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Indradev Ray, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case (Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 329(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with others, fired at two individuals, Rupesh and Chandan. The petitioner contended he did not fire at anyone and highlighted contradictory statements by the alleged victims. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s seven prior criminal convictions. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial court for consideration of a regular bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged offences under the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.
  • Whether the contradictory statements of the alleged victims affect the merit of the bail application.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • criminal antecedent
  • Arms Act
  • B.N.S. 2023
  • Section 109
  • Section 191
  • Section 329
  • bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22520 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Indradev Ray @ Indradeo Rai S/o Late Kameshwar Rai @ Late Kamleshwar
                 Rai @ Kameshwar Rai R/o Village - Samsipur Ward no. 7, Bishanpur,
                 Lodiyahi, Bichli Diara, P.S -Bachhwara, District - Begusarai

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-05-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                                2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been

                   filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with

                   Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025 instituted for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 329(4) of the

                   B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   petitioner along with others has fired at Rupesh and Chandan.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

                   that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He

                   also submits that during the course of investigation, Chandan

                   and Rupesh both have given their statement before the police.

                   Chandan has stated that Rupesh has fired at the informant
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22520 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     whereas Rupesh has stated that Bhulla has fired at him.

                                  5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the

                     petitioner and submitted that petitioner is having seven criminal

                     antecedent.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court

                     is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as

                     such, his application for bail is rejected.

                                  7. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender

                     before the learned trial court within four weeks and prays for

                     regular bail, and trial court shall consider the merit of the case

                     that petitioner has not fired at anyone and shall dispose of his

                     bail petition on the same day without being prejudiced by this

                     order of rejection.



                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.