Patna High Court
Bali Ram Ray @ Bali RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the offence precludes the grant of regular bail.
Summary
Bali Ram Ray was charged under Sections 341, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly delivering a knife blow to the abdomen of a deceased person, resulting in death. He applied for regular bail, claiming false implication, lack of supporting testimony from four trial witnesses, and no prior criminal record, while he had been in judicial custody since 5 December 2022. The State contended that the petitioner was the principal assailant and relied on a Supreme Court decision (X v. State of Rajasthan, SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024) that cautions courts against granting bail in serious offences once trial has commenced. The Patna High Court, after hearing counsel, rejected the bail application, noting the seriousness of the offence and the prosecution’s stance. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused in a serious offence involving alleged homicide under Sections 341, 324 and 323 IPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidance in X v. State of Rajasthan regarding bail in serious offences is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 341
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- serious offence
- IPC
- knife attack
- judicial custody
- high court
- trial expediting
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74372 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2022 Thana- BHAGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan
======================================================
Bali Ram Ray @ Bali Rai S/O Late Lallan Ray R/o Village- Mahmadpur,
P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avinash Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 324,
323 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner has given ‘knife’ blow in the abdomen of the deceased
who died during the course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in connection with the
present case. It is further submitted that in this case altogether
four witnesses have been examined during the course of the trial
and none of them has supported the case of the prosecution. A
statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74372 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/2
petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is
languishing in judicial custody since 05.12.2022.
5. Per Contra, learned APP for the State has submitted
that the petitioner is the main assailant in the present case. He
has also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr passed in SLP(Criminal)
No. 13378 of 2024 wherein in para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court
has held which is being quoted hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused.
6. Considering the fact that it is a case of 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and petitioner is the main assailant, I am not
inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
7. However, the learned trial Court is hereby directed
to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of this order.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.