Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar Rai @ Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court confirmed the provisional bail previously granted to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Rai, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging that he and other accused lured the informant's daughter, failed to return her, and subsequently executed a sale deed in the name of the victim's wife. The petitioner contended that he has a clean antecedent, has been in custody since 17‑02‑2025, and that the FIR was filed belatedly and is false, as the victim had earlier filed a civil suit against her husband. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the informant, opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences and the possibility of tampering with evidence. The court examined the petitioner's clean record, the delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of concrete evidence linking him to the alleged crime. Relying on the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita regarding bail, the court found no compelling reason to deny liberty. Consequently, the provisional bail granted on 29‑08‑2025 was confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail for offences under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the FIR is false and the petitioner’s antecedents justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 137(2), 140(3), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 137
- Section 140
- Section 3
- false FIR
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32162 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Rai @ Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Ray S/o- Tejnarayan Rai @
Tejo Rai Resident of Village- Mokhtiyarpur Salkhani @ Moktiyarpur
Salkhanni PS- Dalsingsarai @ Dalsingsaai Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anish Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Singh, APP
Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, Adv
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rajendra Singh and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 335 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections s 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 17-2-2025. It is next submitted that the informant alleges
that his daughter was staying with him as she was ousted from
her matrimonial home, it is next alleged that on 12-7-2024 at 10
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32162 of 2025(7) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
PM, the accused persons including the petitioner came to his
house and asked his daughter to accompany them on the pretext
to get her meet with her husband, but then his daughter did not
return, it is further alleged that thereafter a search was made, but
the victim could not be found and thereafter the informant came
to know that Tejo Rai got a sale deed with respect to a piece of
land executed in the name of his wife through the victim, it is
alleged that the informant fears that the accused persons under
threat may get other lands also executed in their name by the
victim by putting her under fear.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
date of occurrence is 12-7-2024 and the FIR came to be
instituted on 29-10-2024. It is next submitted that it does not
appear probable that had the victim been called by the accused
persons including the petitioner and would not have returned
thereafter, then an FIR would have been instituted immediately.
It is further submitted that victim had instituted a case in the
court of learned ACJM-I, Dalsinghsarai against her husband and
in the said case, the victim was appearing and had appeared on
20-9-2024, but then the victim by way of afterthought after the
sale deed was executed, got the instant FIR instituted through
the informant with false allegation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32162 of 2025(7) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the provisional bail granted to the
petitioner vide order dated 29-8-2025 is hereby confirmed on
the same terms and conditions.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…