Patna High Court
Dinesh RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners have a prima facie case for pre‑arrest bail and granted bail.
Summary
The petitioners, five brothers, were charged under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code for alleged assault, attempted outrage of modesty, and other offences arising from a dispute over a land transaction. They sought pre‑arrest bail, contending that the dispute was purely civil, stemming from an agreement to sell land where the informant had received Rs. 10,00,000 and later claimed a shortfall of Rs. 4,00,000, leading him to file a false FIR. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. The Court examined the FIR, the land sale agreement, and the informant’s admission of receiving part of the sum, concluding that the case appeared to be a civil matter masquerading as a criminal case. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for bail and ordered their release on pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite allegations of assault and attempted outrage of modesty.
- Whether the FIR constitutes a genuine criminal case or is a false claim arising from a civil land dispute.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 308(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- civil dispute
- land transaction
- false FIR
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
- Bihar law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25457 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1202 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Dinesh Ray S/o Late Kapil Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S.
-Sonepur, District - Saran.
2. Upendra Ray @ Upendra Kumar Son of Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja
Shahpur Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran.
3. Babloo Ray @ Babloo Kumar Son of Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja
Shahpur Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran.
4. Nishu Ray @ Nishu Kumar S/o Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur
Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran.
5. Ravi Ray @ Ravi Kumar S/o Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur
Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 1202/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 118(1),
352, 308(3),351(2),3(5), of the BNS.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
informant had taken a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-, which he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25457 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
subsequently repaid in full along with interest. However, despite
such repayment, the accused persons allegedly came to the
informant’s house and continued to demand money. It is further
alleged that they assaulted the informant, and when his wife
came to rescue him, she was also assaulted. Additionally, the
accused persons allegedly attempted to outrage the modesty of
the informant’s wife.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that no such occurrence, as alleged in the
FIR, has taken place. Rather, the true facts are that the informant
had entered into an agreement to sell a piece of land in favour of
petitioner no. 1 on 02.09.2024. Pursuant to the said agreement,
the informant received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from petitioner
no. 1. A copy of the agreement to sell dated 02.09.2024 has been
brought on record as Annexure P/2. It is contended that the
dispute is of a civil nature, relating to recovery of the said
amount along with interest, which the informant has failed to
repay. It is further submitted that, with an intention to avoid
repayment, the informant has falsely implicated the petitioners
by instituting the present FIR on baseless allegations. Learned
counsel further submitted that the allegations regarding assault
upon the informant and destruction of evidence are wholly false
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25457 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
and have been made only to give a criminal colour to a purely
civil dispute.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, considering the nature of the
allegations levelled against the petitioners, it appears that the
dispute primarily arises out of a transaction relating to land, for
which an agreement to sell dated 02.09.2024 was executed
between the parties. It is also evident from the record that the
informant has admitted, to the extent that a sum of Rs.
4,00,000/- was received by him from petitioner no. 1. The
informant having not paid the said amount, in his defence,
appears to have lodged the present FIR against the petitioners.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the petitioners have, prima facie, made out a case for grant
of pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25457 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Saran, Chapra
/ Concerned Court in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No.
1202/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the
petitioners are involved in some other cases, as what has been
stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will
automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…