Patna High Court
Dilip RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Since the petitioners are not named in the FIR and the allegations are vague, they are entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of Gadal village, were implicated in a police FIR (Case No. 266 of 2021) for alleged assault on police officers using weapons, under multiple IPC sections. They argued that they were not named in the FIR, the allegations were vague and omnibus, and that the investigation had already concluded for the named co‑accused, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The State opposed bail, contending that the seriousness of the offences warranted detention. The High Court observed that the petitioners were indeed not named in the FIR and that the charge sheet lacked specific evidence linking them to the alleged assault, making the allegations insufficient to justify denial of bail. Consequently, the Court ordered their release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 each, two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners, who are not named in the FIR, can be lawfully arrested and denied bail.
- Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations suffices to justify denial of bail.
- Whether custodial interrogation is required in the absence of specific evidence linking the petitioners to the offence.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- FIR
- non‑named accused
- omnibus allegation
- IPC sections
- police assault
- land dispute
- custodial interrogation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55891 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2021 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
1. Dilip Ray S/o Jagdish Ray Village- Gadal, PO- Ramchandrarpur Ithari, PS-
Amarpur, Distt.- Banka
2. Maindi Ray @ Bhedi Ray S/o Mangu Ray Village- Gadal, PO-
Ramchandrarpur Ithari, PS- Amarpur, Distt.- Banka
3. Sudhir Ray S/o Mangru Ray Village- Gadal, PO- Ramchandrarpur Ithari,
PS- Amarpur, Distt.- Banka
4. Gita Devi W/o Bhedi Ray Village- Gadal, PO- Ramchandrarpur Ithari, PS-
Amarpur, Distt.- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mritunjay Prasad Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The accused/petitioners are not named in the F.I.R.
and apprehending their arrest in connection with Amarpur P.S.
Case No. 266 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 332, 333, 337, 353
and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per FIR, named co-accused persons along with
unknown co-accused persons assaulted police personnel on duty,
causing injury by using weapons like lathi, danda, sword, etc. with
intention to cause death.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55891 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
petitioners submitted that allegation qua physical assault against
these petitioners is appearing very much general and omnibus in
nature. It is pointed out that due to land dispute, petitioners were
named during the course of investigation as an afterthought. It is
also submitted that seizure list is disputed, as the same is not
supported by independent witnesses rather by the police personnel
and moreover no sharp-cut injury was found upon any of the
injured, which prima-facie creates a doubt qua allegation that
assault was caused by named accused persons by using sword.
While concluding the argument, it is submitted that investigation
of this case has already completed for apprehended and named co-
accused persons on all material aspects, therefore, sending these
petitioners behind bar shall not serve any purpose of justice and,
therefore, no custodial interrogation appears required in present
case.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the
prayer for bail.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances and by taking
note of the fact as petitioners are not named in the FIR and as
allegation qua physical assault is appearing very much general and
omnibus in nature, accordingly all above named petitioners, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55891 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
within a period of four weeks, are directed to be released on bail,
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Banka/concerned trial court where the case is
pending in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 266 of 2021
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./ Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…