Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rajeev Ray @ Rajeev Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.

Summary

The petitioner, Rajeev Ray, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with FIR No.48/2025, which alleged his participation in a shooting that injured an informant and a villager. The informant’s counsel highlighted that two other accused, Manjit Kumar and Sujit Kumar, had earlier been denied anticipatory bail in similar applications. The FIR charges the petitioner under several sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner’s senior counsel could not refute the allegation that the petitioner was involved in the firing. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the prior rejections, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of participation in a firearm incident and prior denial of bail to co‑accused.

Legislation cited

  • Arms Act — s. 27
  • B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • FIR
  • firearm injury
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • B.N.S. sections
  • Arms Act
  • bail rejection

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50371 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Rajeev Ray @ Rajeev Kumar Ray Son of Mahesh Ray Village -Dumari
                 Dakshini PS -Mohanpur, Dist- Samastipur
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Amit Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   09-02-2026                  1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

                   Krishna Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and the

                   learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Mohanpur P.S. Case No.48/2025, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109,

                   352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   informant at the outset submits that Manjit Kumar @ Manjit

                   Ray had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by

                   filing Cr. Misc. No.45413/2025 and the same came to be

                   rejected by an order dated 15.11.2025. Further, Sujit Kumar @

                   Sujit Ray had also approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc.

                   No.42416/2025 and the same also came to be rejected by an

                   order dated 09.07.2025 by a learned Co-ordinate Bench. It is
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50371 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     next submitted that the FIR was instituted against five named

                     accused persons including the present petitioner with an

                     allegation that accused persons opened fire against the

                     informant when he was hit by a bullet on his stomach and when

                     informant’s co-villager came to rescue him, he was also fired at

                     causing firearm injury. It is further submitted that the case of the

                     petitioner if not akin is similar to the case of aforesaid accused

                     persons whose anticipatory bail applications have been rejected.

                                   4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

                     petitioner argued vehemently but then is not in a position to

                     rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf

                     of the informant that two persons were injured by firearm and

                     petitioner is alleged to have participated in the occurrence also.

                                   5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not

                     inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

                     petitioner.

                                   6.   Accordingly,         the   instant   anticipatory   bail

                     application stands rejected.



                                                               (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.