Patna High Court

Birju Kumar @ Birju Kumar Ray @ Birju RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court held that, given the simple nature of the injury and lack of evidence for attempt to murder, the petitioner is entitled to conditional pre‑arrest bail.

Summary

Birju Kumar Ray sought pre‑arrest bail after an FIR (Case No. 82 of 2025) alleged his involvement in assault, outrage of modesty, theft and other offences. He claimed false implication stemming from a land dispute and argued that the injuries to the informant’s family were simple, not grievous. The State opposed bail. The Court examined precedent on the applicability of Section 307 IPC, noting that the nature of the injury (fracture of a finger) and the weapon used did not satisfy the test for attempt to murder, and that the alleged offences could at most be under Section 326 IPC. It also held that the allegations under Section 354(b) IPC and Section 74 BNS were ornamental. Consequently, the Court directed the District Court to obtain a medical opinion and, if the injury is simple, to release the petitioner on pre‑arrest bail with a bond and sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite allegations under multiple sections of the BNS and IPC.
Whether the facts constitute an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the settlement between parties warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Whether the charges under Section 354(b) IPC and Section 74 BNS are merely ornamental.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNS) — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 326, 354(b)

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
attempt to murder
settlement
injury assessment
ornamental charge
Section 307 IPC
Section 354 IPC
criminal intimidation
CrPC Section 482

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90002 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2025 Thana- Tilakeshwar District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Birju Kumar @ Birju Kumar Ray @ Birju Ray S/o Raj Kishore Ray R/o
Village - Gopalpur Arthua, P.S - Tilkeshwar, District - Darbhanga

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

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

2 15-01-2026 Heard Mr. Dinesh Jha, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, learned APP

appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

with Tilkeshwar P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025 registered under

Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2),

3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner

along with some other accused assaulted the informant’s family

members and outraged the modesty of informant’s aunt and also

committed theft.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has

falsely been implicated in the present case due to annoyance,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90002 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/7

grudge and with a view to put criminal pressure on him due land

dispute pending between the parties. He further submitted that

the injury sustained by the informant’s family members is not

clear, as to whether, the same is simple or grievous in nature. On

these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest

bail.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on

behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation

made in the FIR, I find it apt to take note of the observation

made by the Apex Court recently in case of Naushey Ali & Ors.

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in(2025)4SCC78 in

para-11 to 20, which is reproduced hereinafter:

“11. Before we apply this judgment to the

facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the observations of

Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh (supra):-

"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though
it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted
to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time
the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many
times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties
leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury
by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it
a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well..."

(Emphasis supplied)

12. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court
has held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90002 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/7

or the charge-sheet should not be the basis for adopting
a hands-off approach. It has further held that it would be
open for the court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of
it or whether there is evidence to back it. It has been held
that the courts may go by the nature of injuries
sustained; as to whether the injuries are inflicted on the
vital/ delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon
used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise
would be permissible after investigation and filing of
chargesheet/framing of charges or during the trial. [See
15.4 of Laxmi Narayan (supra)].

13. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there is a
settlement between the parties. The case filed by the
appellants' party which was prior in point of time and
that too on the same day of occurrence, has been settled.

14. It should be recalled that, at the outset, after
investigation, the police actually closed the case in its
final report of 07.09.1991. It was the trial Court, which
by its order of 05.09.1992, refused to accept the same
and summoned the appellants. The incident is of
11.08.1991, i.e. about 33½ years back. No doubt, there is
a reference to the firing in the FIR but admittedly there
was no injury. The allegation is that firing was done by
Abdul Waris. He is since deceased. The facts, assuming
to be true, also do not make out a case of common object
for the appellants under Section 149 IPC insofar as the
offence of Section 307 is concerned.

15. The role attributed to the seven members, including
the five appellants is not specific. General allegation was
that they abused in filthy language and assaulted
Mahmood with lathi and iron bars. The specific
individual role was only attributed to Adbul Waris, who
is since deceased.

16. In any event, the police who investigated disbelieved
the entire story. No recoveries have been made of any
pellets. What engaged the attention of the High Court
was only the fracture of the head of the distal phalanx of
left finger of respondent No.2.

17. We have seen the injuries sustained by Mahmood (R-
2) from the medical evidence collected. From the injury
report, it is clear that while the first four injuries were
contusions and abrasions, injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7
pertained to incised lacerated wound and swelling on the
middle finger of the left hand. We have also seen the x-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90002 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/7

ray report which shows that in the left hand there was a
fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger.
Assuming that this was the result of injury with lathis or
iron bar, applying the test in Laxmi Narayan (supra),
considering the injury and the nature of the weapon
used, certainly no offence under Section 307 IPC is made
out.

18. Section 307 of IPC reads as under:-

"307. Attempt to murder.-

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act
caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such
act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment
for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.

Attempts by life convicts.- When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for
life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death."

19. Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances, the
nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury, on
facts, we are inclined to conclude that the overt act
attributed to the appellants does not bring the case
within the four corners of the Section 307 of IPC, either
on a stand-alone basis or as held above with the aid of
Section 149 of IPC.

20. We are also inclined to conclude that considering the
overall circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the
nature of the injury (fracture of the head of distal
phalanx of left ring finger), the offence alleged, on facts,
does not fall in that category of cases where the court
should deny relief in the event of a settlement. At the
highest, the offence alleged could be one under Section
326 of IPC. It could not be said, on facts, considering all
the circumstances that this is a crime which has such an
harmful effect on the public and that it has the effect of
seriously threatening the well-being of the society. We
make it clear that we are saying so on the facts of the
present case. We are also firmly of the opinion that
proceeding with the trial, when parties have amicably
resolved the dispute in the present case, would be futile
and the ends of justice require that the settlement be
given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90002 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
5/7

grave abuse of process to let this trial remain pending
under the above circumstances, particularly when the
dispute is settled and resolved.”

7. So far as, the allegation under Section 354 (b) of

Indian Penal Code/ Section 74 of BNS is concerned, the same

appears to be ornamental in nature. In this regard, I find it apt to

take note of the observation made by the Apex Court recently in

case of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja Versus State Of

Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) INSC 19 in para-10

and 11, which is reproduced hereinafter:

“10. It is well settled that when considering an
application u/s 482 CrPC, the court cannot conduct a
mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie
the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently,
it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute
examination of the record, that there is some substance in
the allegations made which could meet the threshold of
statutory language.
11. Let us now consider the sections under which the
offences have been alleged. “354. Assault or criminal
force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall
not be less than one year but which may extend to five
years, and shall also be liable to fine. 503. Criminal
intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that person is
interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or
to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is
legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any
deceased person in whom the person threatened is
interested, is within this section. 506. Punishment for
criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90002 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
6/7

be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat
be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or
with both.”

8. The learned District Court is directed to call for

the final opinion of the doctor in respect of the injury report

of the injured persons and if it is found that the same is

simple in nature, then in that case, the petitioner, above

named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail in the

event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District

Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing

bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

District Court where the case is pending in connection with

Tilkeshwar P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025, subject to the condition as

laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS/438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

9. The learned District Court is also directed to

verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as stated in

paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is

pending against the petitioner, as what has been stated in

paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.

10. In the meantime, till verification of the injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90002 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
7/7

report, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in

connection with the aforesaid case.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…