Patna High Court
Ram Udgar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petitioners' anticipatory bail, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Petitioners Ram Udgar Ray and Avinash Ray sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with FIR No. 328 of 2025 alleging assault with an iron rod and theft of a gold chain under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They contended that the allegations were false, the injuries were minor, and the case stemmed from an old dispute, also noting a counter‑case filed by one of them. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, invoking Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The order stipulated bail bonds, sureties, presence in court, and provisions for cancellation upon violation or concealment of antecedents. The court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the nature of the alleged assault and theft, and the claim of false allegations, justify denial of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- assault
- false allegations
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9662 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2025 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Ram Udgar Ray, S/O Late Ram Raksha Ray @ Ram Briksha Roy Resident
of village- Dih Tabhka, ward no 3, P.s.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur
2. Avinash Ray @ Avinash Kumar, S/O Ranjit Ray Resident of village- Dih
Tabhka, ward no 3, P.s.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sonia Narayan Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 328 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352,
351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they
have assaulted the informant with iron rod and the co-accused
have also assaulted and had snatched away the gold chain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are palpably false and
the incident as alleged had not occurred. It has further been
submitted that for the same occurrence a counter case has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9662 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
lodged on behalf of the petitioner, filed by the petitioner no.1. It
has next been submitted that even if the allegations are taken at
its face value, it would appear that the allegations are general
and omnibus in nature and the injury report, which has also been
recorded in the impugned order, states that the injuries were
found to be simple in nature and hence no case under Section
109 of the BNS is made out. It has lastly been submitted that it
was on account of the old dispute, the present FIR has been
lodged against the petitioners, who carry clean antecedents.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 328 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9662 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it
is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However,
the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…