Patna High Court
Pappu Ray @ Pramod Ray @ Pappu Kumar @ Pramod Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Ray, was arrested in Dagarua PS Case No. 312 of 2025 for offences under Sections 64, 76, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including an alleged rape of the informant, who is his devar. The informant, a mother of three, claims the accusation is false and stems from a long‑standing land dispute between the parties. The SHO who lodged the complaint admitted his mistake and assured the court that it would not be repeated. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted his clean antecedent and the disputed nature of the allegations, seeking bail. Considering the relationship, the land‑dispute context, the SHO’s admission, and the petitioner’s clean record, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions of personal or lawyer‑by‑lawyer appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving alleged rape and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, given the circumstances of a land dispute and the SHO’s admission of mistake.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 3(5), 351(2), 352, 64, 76
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- land dispute
- clean antecedent
- SHO admission
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9424 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2025 Thana- DAGARUA District- Purnia
======================================================
Pappu Ray @ Pramod Ray @ Pappu Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Ray Son of
Dayalal Ray Resident of Fulpur Chakdah, Ward no. 5, P.S. - Dagarua, District
- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md Fazle Karim, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP
for the State and
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Dagarua P.S. Case No. 312 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 64, 76, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 06.04.2026, the then
SHO of Dagarua, Purnea has appeared and has accepted his
mistake and has assured this Court that he will not repeat this
mistake in future.
4. The petitioner is the devar of the informant and is
alleged to have committed rape with her.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9424 of 2026(4) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
informant is a woman having three children and there is a land
dispute since before between the parties. He has also relied upon
the documents of the land dispute and has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently
opposed the application for bail.
7. Considering the relationship and the materials
regarding previous land dispute as well as the clean antecedent
of the petitioner, this application is allowed.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
C.J.M., Purnea/ concerned Court in connection with Dagarua
P.S. Case No. 312 of 2025.
9. As a condition of this order, the petitioner, after
being released on bail is directed to co-operate in the trial either
by appearing personally or through his lawyer in the trial Court
on each and every date fixed in the trial. Non-compliance of the
condition will result in cancellation of the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
10. The personal appearance of the SHO is dispensed
with.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9424 of 2026(4) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
11. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…