Patna High Court
Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray @ Ajay RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Kumar (also known as Ajay Ray), was arrested in connection with a contract‑killing case involving the murder of the informant’s brother, alleged under Sections 326, 307, 120B, 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the only incriminating material was the confessional statements of co‑accused, and that he had been in custody for over a year due to a vacant trial court. The State, supported by the informant, opposed bail, relying on the Supreme Court’s cancellation of an earlier bail order in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9375/2024. The High Court examined whether the change in circumstances – prolonged trial and court vacancy – justified a fresh bail application despite the serious nature of the offences. Finding no substantive evidence of the petitioner’s participation beyond the co‑accused statements and noting the procedural delay, the Court granted regular bail on condition of a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with trial‑court appearances. The order also warned that any non‑appearance could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offences and prior Supreme Court cancellation of bail.
- Whether the delay in trial and vacancy of the trial court constitute a change in circumstances justifying bail.
- Whether the lack of material evidence against the petitioner, apart from co‑accused confessions, warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 307, 326
Subjects
- bail
- contract killing
- IPC
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- court vacancy
- Supreme Court cancellation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29528 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-632 Year-2023 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna
======================================================
Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray @ Ajay Rai, aged about 37 years, Son of Mohan
Rai, Resident of Bal Kishun Complex, Near Central Bank, Rajeev Nagar PS-
Rajeev Nagar District- Patna, at present residing at Mohalla- Kurji Balu Par
PS- Digha District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Himanshu Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 521 of 2025 arising out of Patliputra P.S.
Case No. 632 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable
under Sections 326, 307, 120B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of contract
killing and the petitioner along with other co-accused persons
came on motorcycles and fired shot the brother of the informant
thereafter he died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29528 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
2/4
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next
submits that save and except, the confessional statement of co-
accused persons, there is no other material on record to show the
complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Petitioner
has got twenty three criminal antecedents as stated in para-3 of
the petition and he is in custody since 27.01.2025. He next
submits that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was
rejected by this Court Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9375 of
2024. He next submits that the trial of the petitioner is pending
before the concerned trial Court because the concerned Trial
Court is vacant.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant opposed the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner.
6. From perusal of the FIR and impugned order of the
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st Patna dated
09.12.2025, it also appears that the opinion of the Hon’ble Apex
Court ‘Respondent No.2, Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray, will be
entitled to file a fresh application for grant of bail in case of a
change in circumstances or if the trial gets prolonged due to
reasons not attributable to respondent No.2, Vishal Kumar @
Ajay Ray, or the co-accused’ the order of Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29528 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
3/4
Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9375 of 2024, the Supreme Court of
India cancelled the bail of the petitioner which was earlier
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2024 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 14021 of 2024. Petitioner is in custody since
27.01.2025, i.e., more than one year and thereafter passed the
Hon’ble Apex Court’s observation, the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna dated 15.03.2026, ‘a petition
has been filed by learned counsel for the State praying therein to
defer the judgment and grant one week time to file some
documents and also for making argument on certain important
points and all the counsels for defence are present in the court.
Learned counsel for accused persons, namely, Ajay Rai @
Vishal Kumar @ Md. Raja, Md. Imran & Md. Kyosh has
submitted that the accused persons, namely, (1) Ajay Rai @
Vishal Kumar, (2) Md. Raja & (3) Md. Imran are in custody and
further submitted that no copy of such petition has been
supplied to them, the state has been given ample opportunities
for producing the evidence as well as for arguments. After
conclusion of the argument of defence, the State has filed some
rulings as well as its written arguments also and thereafter on
the request of State, case was fixed for judgment and today’s
date is fixed for pronouncement of judgment and filing such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29528 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
4/4
petition by the State indicates the delaying tactics reason best
known to them, such petition is vague.’ as also the fact that
similarly situated co-accused Santosh Kumar has been granted
bail by this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No.6309 of 2024 and also
the fact that both parties have stated that at present, the
concerned Court where trial is going on is currently vacant.
7. In view of the above facts, let the above named
petitioner be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge-
Ist, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No.521 of 2025
arising out of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 632 of 2023, subject to
the condition that the petitioner shall present before the learned
trial Court on each and every date as fixed by the learned trial
Court till pronouncement of the judgment and if any single date
is absented by the petitioner, then the trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.