Patna High Court
Rajendra RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Ray, applied for anticipatory bail after a FIR (Case No.20/2026) alleged his involvement in offences under multiple sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, the Arms Act and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He claimed he was not arrested at the scene, no contraband was found in his possession and he was implicated merely because he is the father of one of the accused. The State opposed the bail, highlighting three prior criminal cases against the petitioner and stating that the seized articles were recovered from his son, necessitating further investigation and interrogation. The Court examined the seriousness of the charges, the petitioner’s antecedent record and the need for investigation. Concluding that the circumstances did not merit the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court rejected the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences and his antecedent criminal record
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of physical possession of the seized items negates the need for bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 111, 132, 308(2), 317(4), 318(4), 329(4), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Arms Act
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- FIR
- seizure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27156 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran
======================================================
Rajendra Ray S/o- Late Kishun Ray R/v- Dahiyawa Daragah Ps- Chapra
Town Dist- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Town P.S. Case No.20/2026, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 329(4), 317(4), 111, 308(2), 132,
318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 25(1-B_ (a) 26,
35 of the Arms Act and Sections 30(a) and 45 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and allegation is of
recovery of Rs.5,00,900/-, Android mobiles, Ear Buds, two
knives and other articles as detailed in the FIR from house of
Lakhan Rai, further 930 ml of liquor along with one country
made pistol along with three sword from house of Raju Rai and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27156 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/2
different mobiles and other articles as detailed in the FIR from
house of Shatrudhan Rai. It is next submitted that petitioner
was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered
from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated
based on the fact that he is father of Lakhan Rai.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has
antecedent of three cases of the year 1997, 2001 and 2015 and
the articles as detailed was recovered from his son, hence the
case requires to be investigated and interrogation of the
petitioner is also necessary.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…