Patna High Court
Mahendra RayversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, holding that the allegations were insufficient to deny bail and that the conditions of Section 482(2) were satisfied.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Ray family, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a murder case (Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC) involving the informant's daughter. They argued they were falsely implicated, had no connection with the victim, and possessed a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations. The Court examined the lack of incriminating material against the petitioners and their willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Considering the circumstances and their clean record, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to deny bail in a case involving Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedent and lack of direct involvement justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 482
- clean antecedent
- suspicion
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7458 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2023 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Mahendra Ray Son of Late Bhola Ray Resident of Village- Ahimanpatti,
P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran
2. Dhanmatiya Devi W/o Mahendra Ray Resident of Village- Ahimanpatti,
P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran
3. Umesh Ray Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Village- Ahimanpatti, P.S.-
Dighwara, District- Saran
4. Raju Kumar Ray @ Raju Ray Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Village-
Ahimanpatti, P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran
5. Dinesh Ray Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Village- Ahimanpatti, P.S.-
Dighwara, District- Saran
6. Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ray Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Village-
Ahimanpatti, P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran
7. Mithilesh Ray @ Raju Ray Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Village-
Ahimanpatti, P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
For the
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Dighwara P.S. Case No.269 of 2023 instituted under
Sections 302, 201, 34 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the
informant fled away from her house and solemnized marriage
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7458 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
with co-accused Rajesh Kumar three years ago and from that
wedlock they had two children. It is alleged that informant got
information that his daughter has been murdered by accused
persons on 31.07.2023 and her dead body has been hidden and
destroyed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this
case only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that
petitioners are in-laws of the daughter of the informant. Learned
counsel submits that only on the basis of suspicion that the
deceased has been killed, the petitioners have been implicated in
this case without any basis. He further submits that co-accused
Rajesh Kumar had married with the daughter of the informant
against the wishes of her family and after marriage they are
living separately in the house of informant. Learned counsel
submits that petitioner’s family have neither any knowledge nor
any connection with the deceased and her husband. He further
submits that as per the prosecution case, the informant had got
information of the occurrence on 31.07.2023 but he had
informed the police only on 11.08.2023. Learned counsel
submits that there is no allegation of any torture to the victim by
the petitioners. He further submits that there is no incriminating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7458 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
material against the petitioners to connect them with the alleged
occurrence. Petitioners have got clean antecedent and they
undertake to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the
nature of allegation leveled against the petitioners as well as
their clean antecedent, in the event of arrest or surrender before
the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners be
released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount to each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-II nd,
Saran at Chapra/ concerned Court in connection with Dighwara
P.S. Case No.269 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down in
Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.