Patna High Court
Rajesh Ray @ Rajesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Ray was arrested in connection with a 2022 incident during a Panchayat dispute where he was alleged to have assaulted the informant and others with a knife, leading to charges under Sections 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent, asserted that the FIR was fabricated, and argued that he had no intention to kill despite the grievous injuries. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation of assault and the grievous nature of one injury. The court, noting the petitioner’s clean record and the length of his pre‑trial custody, granted bail on a cash bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order also directed the lower court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent and to cancel bail if any concealment is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial for offences including rioting, assault, and attempt to murder.
- Whether the nature of the alleged injuries and the specific assault allegation justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and period of pre‑trial custody warrant the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 307, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- rioting
- assault
- attempt to murder
- criminal intimidation
- clean antecedent
- pre‑trial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74738 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2022 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rajesh Ray @ Rajesh Yadav S/o- Wakil Ray R/v- Mathiya Bariyarpur Ps-
Piprakothi Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.
For the informant : Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 19-03-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab , learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
15.05.2025 in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 301 of
2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323,
324, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.11.2022
at about 7:00 A.M., due to a previous dispute a Panchayati was
going on at the door of one Lal Babu Ray, when the accused
persons allegedly came armed with knife and started abusing the
informant. It is alleged that when the informant protested,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74738 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
Rajesh Rai (petitioner) gave a knife blow on the chest of Akash
Kumar @ Laddu Kumar, and when the informant came for
rescue, co-accused Wakil Rai gave a knife blow on his left
thigh. Thereafter, Kanhaiya Sah, Radheshyam Sah, and Gaya
Sah were also allegedly assaulted by co- accused persons with
knives.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that due to petty dispute
the present occurrence took place and there is specific allegation
of assault on the informant and his family members and some of
injury of the injured persons are found to be grievous in nature
and some injuries are found to be simple in nature. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no intention on
the part of the petitioner to kill anyone although the injury
inflicted upon the informant is grievous in nature and the police
after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner.
It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since
15.05.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74738 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submit that there is a direct and specific allegation of assault by
the petitioner against the informant and his family members and
one of the injuries is found to be grievous in nature.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and also
considering the period of custody, let the petitioner, above
named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-12, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with
Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 301 of 2022, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74738 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…