Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raj Nath RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners, subject to strict conditions, as the allegations did not warrant denial of bail.

Summary

The petitioners, Raj Nath Ray and Vikki Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with PS‑Madhaurah Case No.267 of 2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the B.N.S., including assault with a sharp weapon. They contended that the allegations were false, citing lack of corroborative injuries and a history of enmity with the informant, and argued that the injuries were simple and caused by blunt objects. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the charges. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. The order emphasized that the bail conditions must be complied with and that any concealment of criminal antecedents could lead to cancellation, and it clarified that the observations would not affect the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in view of the allegations under the B.N.S.
  • Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute a ground to deny bail on the basis of likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing.
  • Whether the presence of prior criminal antecedent of petitioner 1 affects the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Section 482 B.N.S.
  • false implication
  • criminal antecedent
  • assault with sharp weapon
  • Bihar criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6281 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-267 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Raj Nath Ray S/o- Chandrika Ray Village - Madhopur, Ward no -8, P.S -
                  Madhurarah, District- Saran
           2.    Vikki Kumar S/o- Raj Nath Ray Village - Madhopur, Ward no -8, P.S -
                 Madhurarah, District- Saran

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s

                                                      Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Hemant Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   A.P.P for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection

                   with Madhaura P.S. Case No. 267 of 2025 dated 24.04.2025

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),

                   115(2), 303(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

                                3. The allegations against the petitioners are that they

                   have hurled abuses upon the informant and thereafter, the

                   petitioner no. 2 had struck the informant on the head with an iron

                   rod. It is further alleged that when the informant’s husband came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6281 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            2/4




          to rescue her, the petitioner no. 1 attacked him on the head with a

          dab sharp weapon.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

          petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and no such

          occurrence as alleged has taken place. It has further been

          submitted that the injuries do not corroborate the statement made

          by the informant and one injury was found both on the informant

          as well as her husband and the same were referred to as simple in

          nature caused by hard and blunt substance. However, there is a

          specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1 that he had used a

          sharp cutting weapon. Learned counsel has further submitted that

          there is previous enmity between the parties and hence the

          petitioners have falsely been implicated. It is lastly submitted that

          the petitioner no. 1 has one criminal antecedent whereas the

          petitioner no. 2 has clean antecedent.

                       5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the

          parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

          case, the petitioners above named, are directed to be released on

          anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the

          Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6281 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            3/4




          furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)each

          with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

          learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in

          connection with Madhaura P.S. Case No. 267 of 2025, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of

          BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:-

                       (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the

          petitioners.

                       (ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and

          every date fixed, if so required by the learned Trial Court.

                       (iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in

          violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners

          will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

                       (iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedents

          of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the

          petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the trial

          court shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the

          petitioners. 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.

                       7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6281 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       4/4




                     this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.

                                  8. The application stands allowed.



                                              (Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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