Patna High Court
Kaushal Kumar Ray @ Rajeeb Kumar Ray @ Rajib KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, four members of the Ray family, were implicated in an arson case (Andharathari PS Case No. 97 of 2025) alleging they set an informant's house on fire and stole Rs. 50,000, invoking Sections 126(2), 324, 326(g) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. They claimed innocence, arguing the allegations stemmed from a personal dispute and that police investigation recovered no burnt articles or material linking them to the crime. The State opposed anticipatory bail, asserting the petitioners attempted murder. The High Court noted the lack of material evidence, the petitioners' clean antecedents (except one with a pending case), and the investigative report contradicting the informant's claim. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., imposing conditions such as surety, physical presence at trial, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious nature of the arson and attempted murder allegations.
- Whether the absence of material evidence and the petitioners' clean antecedents justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S. are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 126(2), 324, 326(g), 3(5), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- arson
- criminal procedure
- Section 438
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- false implication
- personal dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8289 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2025 Thana- ANDHRATHARHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Kaushal Kumar Ray @ Rajeeb Kumar Ray @ Rajib Kumar S/o- Sri
Yogendra Ray R/v- Chapahi Ps- Andharathari Dist- Madhubani
2. Amla Devi w/o- Sri Yogendra Ray R/v- Chapahi Ps- Andharathari Dist-
Madhubani
3. Sanjeeb Kumar Ray S/o- Sri Yogendra Ray R/v- Chapahi Ps- Andharathari
Dist- Madhubani
4. Yogendra Ray S/o- Late Sonai Ray R/v- Chapahi Ps- Andharathari Dist-
Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Andharathari P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025 dated 26.06.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
324, 326(g) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they set
the informant’s dwelling house on fire and destroyed certain
articles including cash of Rs. 50,000/-.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8289 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case and no such occurrence as alleged has taken place. It is
further submitted that the petitioners are immediate neighbours
of the informant and due to some personal dispute, the
petitioners have falsely been named by the informant. It has
further been submitted that during the course of investigation,
no article was found there by the police which is stated to have
been burnt because of the fire, which was put by the petitioners.
It has also been submitted that I.O. has found the contrary to
what has been stated by the informant. It has further been
submitted that the petitioners are the immediate family members
and they have all been implicated with general and omnibus
allegation. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner nos. 1,
3 and 4 have no criminal antecedent whereas the petitioner no. 2
has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and
submitted that the petitioners set the house of the informant on
fire and attempted to kill them.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the fact that even during the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8289 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
course of investigation, no material was recovered by the police
which is said to have been burnt during such fire as also the fact
that the petitioners carries clean antecedent and it has also been
submitted that the petitioner no. 2 who was made an acused in
one case and in the said case, the police has submitted final
form, in view of the above, 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 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
Andharathari P.S. Case No. 97 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 shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8289 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
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 antecedent
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 necessary steps 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 this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…