Patna High Court

Ramchela RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 January 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: ALOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

Bail was denied as the court found the petitioner’s antecedents and the nature of the robbery charge, coupled with the long pendency, did not merit release.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramchela Ray, sought bail in a robbery case (Section 395 IPC) registered in 2006, alleging innocence and that his name appeared only in a co-accused's confession. He has been in custody since September 2025 and has five prior criminal cases pending on bail. The State opposed bail, highlighting the charge-sheet filed in 2008 naming him as an absconder and his criminal antecedents. The court noted the extraordinary 19‑year delay in trial and considered the seriousness of the alleged offence and the petitioner’s history. Consequently, the court refused bail, directing that a fresh application may be filed if the trial is not concluded within six months.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite a 19‑year trial delay
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail
Whether the allegations under Section 395 IPC warrant continued detention pending trial

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 395

Subjects

bail
robbery
Section 395 IPC
trial delay
criminal antecedents
high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88144 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2006 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Ramchela Ray S/o Ramchandra Rai @ Jaga Ray R/o Village - Tikuliya, P.S -
                 Muffasil, District - East Champaran (Wrongly -Katihar)

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 89 of 2006 registered

                   for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian

                   Penal Code.

                                3.     As per the prosecution case, the informant,

                   working as a munshi at a brick kiln, had kept ₹6,000/-, being the

                   sale proceeds of 3,000 bricks, in a box. At about 11:15 P.M.,

                   while he and other workers were sleeping, 8–9 miscreants

                   arrived at the brick kiln, out of whom four entered the room,

                   committed robbery of the said amount, threatened to kill them,

                   and fled from the spot.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88144 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged

          in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that petitioner is not named in

          the F.I.R rather his name has surfaced upon the confessional

          statement of co-accused Dhuman Rai. No incriminating article

          has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Apart

          from that, petitioner having five criminal antecedents in which

          he is on bail. Petitioner has been in custody since 21.09.2025.

                       5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer

          for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the

          impugned order, it is evident that charge-sheet has been

          submitted against the petitioner along with co-accused persons

          on 16.02.2008 showing them absconder. Apart from that

          petitioner is having five criminal antecedents. Hence, he does

          not deserve bail.

                       6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the

          present case is of the year 2006 and the petitioner has been

          apprehended in the year 2025 and due to conduct of the

          petitioner trial is kept pending for about 19 years.

                       7.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner as well

          as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail

          to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88144 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                      petitioner is hereby rejected.

                                   8. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within

                      six months, he may renew the prayer for bail.



                                              (Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Nilmani/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…