Patna High Court
Tejnarayan Ray @ Tej Narayan RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 3189/2026 with conditions and allowed the withdrawal of anticipatory bail for Tejnarayan Ray.
Summary
The petitioners Motilal Rai, Sanjay Kumar and Sudama Kunwar applied for anticipatory bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3189/2026, arising from FIR No. 361/2025 alleging murder of Sushila Kumari under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They are relatives of the deceased and contend that the FIR contains only general, omnibus allegations with no specific charge against them, and that they are law‑abiding citizens. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court also dealt with a separate anticipatory bail application (Cr. Misc. No. 3248/2026) by Tejnarayan Ray, which was withdrawn on the petitioner's request and the petitioner was directed to surrender. Considering the lack of specific allegations and the petitioners' circumstances, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the three petitioners subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, while also ordering the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail for Tejnarayan Ray.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the FIR contains only general, omnibus allegations and no specific charge against the petitioners.
- Whether the anticipatory bail application of Tejnarayan Ray can be withdrawn and the petitioner directed to surrender.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 80
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- omnibus FIR
- general allegations
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- withdrawal of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3189 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Motilal Rai @ Moti Lal Ray Son of Late Jamuna Rai Resident of Village -
Jamunapur, P.S. -Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran.
2. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Prasad Yadav Son of Late Hira Lal Ray Resident of
Village - Jamunapur, P.S. -Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran.
3. Sudama Kunwar Wife of Late Hira Lal Rai Resident of Village - Jamunapur,
P.S. -Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3248 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Tejnarayan Ray @ Tej Narayan Rai S/ O Motilal Ray Resident of Village -
Jamunapur, P.S. -Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3189 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhurendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3248 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhurendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bishweshwar Ram
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. As both the bail applications arise out of the same
police station case number, and with the consent of the parties,
they are being heard together and disposed of by this common
order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3189 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/5
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner, Tejnarayan Ray @ Tej Narayan Rai,
in Cr. Misc. No.3248 of 2026.
4. Permission is accordingly granted.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the
anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner in Cr.
Misc. No.3248 of 2026 stands dismissed as withdrawn and the
petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a
period of four weeks from today and it is expected that on
surrender, his regular bail application will be heard on merits.
6. Now, the anticipatory bail application with respect
to petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.3189 of 2026 is being considered.
7. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.361 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 11.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
8. According to prosecution case, Sushila Kumari,
was married to co-accused Tej Narayan Rai on 27.06.2022. At
the time of marriage, substantial gifts including gold and silver
ornaments, furniture, clothes, a motorcycle, and cash were
given. After the birth of a baby girl, the accused allegedly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3189 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/5
demanded a gold chain and a she-buffalo and subjected the
deceased to cruelty for non-fulfilment of these demands.
Despite attempts by the informant to settle the matter, the
accused allegedly threatened to kill her. On 05.09.2025, the
accused persons allegedly killed the deceased, cremated her
body, and fled. The informant learned of the incident from
villagers and, upon reaching the matrimonial home, found that
the body had already been cremated, leading to the lodging of
the present case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the father-in-law, cousin and aunt
of the deceased daughter of the informant. It has next been
submitted that from the contents of the F.I.R., there is nothing
specific against these petitioners rather the allegations are
general and omnibus in nature. It has further been submitted that
the petitioner was suffering from severe anxiety and depression
on the alleged date of occurrence and she committed suicide and
on information having been given to the parents of the deceased,
they participated in the cremation and thereafter, the F.I.R. was
lodged, after a delay of about six days. The petitioners are law
abiding citizens, having sufficient means and could not abscond
or tamper with the evidence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3189 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/5
10. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that there is no specific allegations against the petitioners in Cr.
Misc. No.3189 of 2026 rather the allegations are general and
omnibus in nature and the F.I.R. is said to have been lodged
after a delay of about six days and the anticipatory bail
application with respect to petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.3248 of
2026 has already been withdrawn and he proposes to surrender
before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.3189 of 2026.
12. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- 12th East
Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case
No.361 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section
482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3189 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
5/5
following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(v) the learned Trial Court is directed to accept the
bail bonds of the petitioner only after ensuring the surrender of
the husband being the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.3248 of 2026.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…