Patna High Court
Jay Prakash Ray @ Chhotaka @ Jay Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond and sureties, and conditioned on his cooperation with the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Jay Prakash Ray, was accused under Sections 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of an informant's father, based largely on the informant's suspicion and a 'last seen' theory. The FIR was lodged six days after the alleged incident, and the trial has been pending for over two years despite earlier expectations of a six‑month conclusion. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and highlighted the delay and lack of substantive evidence. The State opposed regular bail, but the High Court, noting the prolonged trial and the weak evidential basis, ordered the petitioner to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and complying with trial court directives. The order conditions the petitioner to cooperate with the trial and appear on all scheduled dates until disposal.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted in a murder case under Sections 364 and 34 IPC when the trial has been delayed for over two years and the evidence is primarily based on suspicion.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 364
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- IPC 364
- IPC 34
- trial delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86597 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-854 Year-2023 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Jay Prakash Ray @ Chhotaka @ Jay Prakash Kumar S/o Mundrika Ray @
Munarik Ray R/o Village - Karanpura, P.S - Naubatpur, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Laliteshwar Prasad Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 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 364 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
02.12.2023 Chotka @ Jai Prakash Ray son of Munarik Ray
come to the house of the informant and stated that there was a
marriage of his brother-in-law and that certain articles were to
be purchased in connection therewith. On this pretext, the father
of the informant went with the petitioner, his wife and his
brother-in-law. On 12.12.2023, the petitioner and his wife
returned home but the father of the informant did not return.
When the informant asked regarding his father, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86597 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
and his wife disclosed that he was not with them. The informant
suspects that the petitioner along with others has killed his
father.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
connection with the present case. It is further submitted from a
bare perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the allegation is based
merely on the suspicion of the informant and rests solely on the
last seen theory. It is contended that the alleged occurrence took
place on 12.12.2023 whereas the FIR was lodged on 18.12.2023
and no explanation has been furnished by the informant for
delay in lodging the FIR. It is further contended that earlier the
bail petition of this petitioner was rejected with an observation
that “ the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if
the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period”. The
learned trial Court vide its report has stated that if both parties
co-operate, the trial is likely to be concluded within six months.
However, the said period of six month has already lapsed and
the petitioner is languishing in judicial for the last two years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed
on record the entire order sheet of the trial Court which goes to
show that the trial has still not been concluded.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86597 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on
bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 854 of 2023 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge – II, Danapur with the condition that
the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall remain
present himself on each and every date fixed by the trial court
until the disposal of the case.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U T
Checking your session…