Patna High Court

Brajesh Ray @ Brajesh Kumar Yadav @ Brajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Brajesh Ray, filed a regular bail application in a case registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged dacoity. He had been in custody since 30 May 2025, and the investigation was completed without any incriminating material being recovered from him. The petitioner argued that the charge was based merely on suspicion and that three co‑accused had already been granted bail in similar circumstances. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the petitioner’s contentions. Considering the lengthy custody, lack of evidence, and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, the Court inclined to release the petitioner on bail, directing a bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offence under Section 395 IPC
Whether the absence of material evidence and completion of investigation justify granting bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 395

Subjects

regular bail
Section 395 IPC
dacoity
criminal procedure
investigation completed
co‑accused bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86725 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2020 Thana- MOTIPUR District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Brajesh Ray @ Brajesh Kumar Yadav @ Brajesh Kumar S/o Ram Kripal Ray
                 Resident of Village- Deogan, Sonepur, P.S.- Katra, District- Muzaffarpur
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   09-01-2026                    Heard Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, learned counsel for the

                   Petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP for the State.

                                  2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

                   Motipur P.S. Case No. 218 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 registered for

                   the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal

                   Code.

                                 3. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner’s

                   counsel are that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since

                   30.05.2025, the investigation against him has been completed and

                   without any material or evidence, he has been made an accused

                   mainly on the basis of suspicion and during the course of

                   investigation, the police failed to recover any incriminating

                   evidence, including any part of the looted money, from his

                   possession. It is further submitted that three co-accused persons,

                   carrying almost similar nature of allegations, have been granted
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86725 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     bail by the learned co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders

                     dated 01.12.2021, 05.01.2022, and 20.09.2023 passed in Cr. Misc.

                     Nos. 33899 of 2021, 45029 of 2021, and 13740 of 2023,

                     respectively, and the trial court mentioned in the order rejecting

                     the bail prayer for the petitioner that the looted money was

                     recovered from the accused persons, but the name of this

                     petitioner, whether he was among them, has not been noted by the

                     trial court.

                                    4. Though learned APP for the State has opposed the

                     prayer for bail of the petitioner but he has not been able to refute

                     the petitioner’s aforesaid defence.

                                    5. Considering the aforesaid submissions and mainly the

                     petitioner’s custody period, completion of the investigation against

                     him, and the averments made by him in the petition, coupled with

                     the aforesaid defence, this Court is inclined to release him on bail.

                     Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above be released on bail on

                     furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)

                     with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

                     concerned Court in connection with Motipur P.S. Case No. 218 of

                     2020.


                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)

maynaz/-
U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Himanshu Shekhar