Patna High Court
Arvind Ray @ Arvind Rai @ Arvind KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
In the absence of a specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioner, anticipatory bail is to be granted subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
Arvind Ray applied for anticipatory bail in PS case No.115 of 2026, which alleged his involvement in a violent incident where co‑accused fired at the informant's father. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated due to a long‑standing dispute and argued that the FIR did not specifically allege any overt act by him. The informant and the State opposed bail, citing a prior case against the petitioner under IPC 307 and his alleged role as an accomplice. The court examined the lack of a specific allegation of assault or overt act against the petitioner and, considering the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under CrPC 438(2) and B.N.S.S. 482(2). The order emphasized that the bail conditions are enforceable and that the observations made are not binding during trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person alleged to be an accomplice in offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the existence of prior criminal cases and a personal dispute preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the absence of a specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioner justifies anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 308(4), 329(3), 3(5), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- accomplice liability
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33393 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2026 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Arvind Ray @ Arvind Rai @ Arvind Kumar, Son of Late Bindeshwar Ray,
Resident of Village - Jiyalal Ray Chowk, P.S. - Ahiyapur, District -
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Priya Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Anunay Shahi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and the
learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in
connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 115 of 2026 registered
for the offence(s) under Section(s) 329(3), 109, 308(4), 352 and
3(5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33393 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/5
3. The allegations against the petitioner is that he
along with two others had intercepted the informant and the
petitioner is alleged to have abused and ordered the other two
persons to kill him. It has been alleged that the other two
accused persons, namely, Sanjit Ray and Pratik Ray, fired from
their guns, causing injury on the leg of Subodh Kumar, the
father of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case in
retaliation to the long standing dispute between the two persons.
It has been submitted that earlier also in the year 2023, one case
was lodged by the petitioner against the informant and others for
which Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 305 of 2023 was lodged and
subsequent thereto, the informant of the present case had lodged
one case being Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 824 of 2023. It has
further been submitted that even reading the averments made in
the F.I.R., it would be evident that there is no specific allegation
of assault on the petitioner. The specific allegation of firing is
upon the two other accused persons, namely, Sanjit Ray and
Pratik Ray. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner
carries two criminal cases against his name, wherein he is on
bail, and both the cases have been lodged by the informant or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33393 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/5
his father.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant as also the learned A.P.P. for the State have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner. The learned counsel for the informant has
submitted that the petitioner should not be granted the liberty of
anticipatory bail on account of the fact that against him a case
being Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 824 of 2023 was lodged for the
offences under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and other allied
sections. It has next been submitted that there is no specific
allegation of assault against the petitioner, but he being party to
the said crime and also the instigator, should not be released on
anticipatory bail. It has further been submitted that there is a
specific allegation of firing by the co-accused person and the
petitioner being an accomplice, cannot be said to be innocent
and in view of the fact that the petitioner has two criminal cases
against his name, he should not be granted the liberty of
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking into account the fact that there is no specific
allegation of any overt act against the petitioner, let the
petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33393 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
4/5
event of his/her arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court
where the case is pending in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case
No. 115 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read
with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the
following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33393 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
5/5
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/Tannu
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.