Patna High Court
Chandan Ray @ Chandan Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail is granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Ray, sought bail fearing arrest in a criminal case (Sarairanjan P.S. Case No.167 of 2025) filed under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging his involvement in a homicide. The prosecution’s case is based on a confessional statement of co‑accused Rahul Kumar, while the petitioner contends he was falsely implicated and that the FIR was originally lodged against unknown persons. Investigation revealed that the deceased had consumed drugs and died as a result, casting doubt on the murder allegation. The learned counsel argued that the evidence was insufficient to justify continued detention. The Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allowed the bail application, directing release on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the trial. The order is limited to the bail matter and does not prejudice future proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the CrPC in a case instituted under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, considering the alleged false implication and the nature of the evidence.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused is sufficient ground for arrest and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 238
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- false implication
- confessional statement
- drug‑related death
- Section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28527 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur
======================================================
Chandan Ray @ Chandan Kumar Ray S/O Surendra Ray R/O Ward No. 13,
Village- Gaupur, Bhagwatpur, P.S- Sarai Ranjan, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Sarairanjan P.S. Case No.167 of 2025 instituted under Sections
103(1), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and
others are said to have killed the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. The FIR is registered against unknown persons and the
name of the petitioner has come on the basis of the
confessional statement of the co-accused Rahul Kumar.
5. During investigation, it has come that the deceased
had taken drugs and because of which, he passed away.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28527 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/2
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this bail
application is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the Court below within six weeks from today, the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail upon furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Samastipur District- Samastipur/ concerned Court in
connection with Sarai Ranjan P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025, subject
to the conditions laid down in Section 482 of the BNSS/ 438(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.