Patna High Court
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Pre‑arrest bail was denied to Vinay Kumar but granted to Kundan Kumar as the former faced specific allegations while the latter faced only general allegations.
Summary
Vinay Kumar and Kundan Kumar were named in FIR No.257/2025 for offences including assault, outraging modesty and theft. They sought pre‑arrest bail, asserting that they were falsely implicated due to a personal enmity. The State opposed the bail. The High Court found specific allegations against Vinay Kumar for assault with an iron rod and therefore refused him pre‑arrest bail. It held that the allegations against Kundan Kumar were general and omnibus, granting him pre‑arrest bail on a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents. The application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in the present case
- Whether the presence of specific allegations against an accused precludes the grant of pre‑arrest bail
- Whether general and omnibus allegations justify the grant of pre‑arrest bail
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 482
- high court powers
- specific allegations
- general allegations
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- assault
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9829 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2025 Thana- DERNI BAZAR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Ray S/O Raj Kishore Ray R/O Village-
Pirari, P.S.- Derni, District- Saran
2. Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Ray S/O Raj Kishore Ray R/O Village-
Pirari, P.S.- Derni, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Derni P.S. Case No. 257/2025 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 74,
303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, due to prior
enmity, the petitioners, along with other accused, allegedly
assaulted the informant and his family members with weapons,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9829 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
causing injuries, and also outraged the modesty of a woman and
snatched gold ornaments.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have been
falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners have no
concern with the alleged incident and have been falsely
implicated due to prior enmity between the parties, who are
agnates. So far as, petitioner no. 2, namely Kundan Kumar, is
concerned, there is no specific allegation attributed to him and
his implication is general and omnibus in nature. However, with
regard to petitioner no. 1, namely Vinay Kumar, it is alleged that
he assaulted the informant and also inflicted injuries upon the
informant’s wife and daughters with iron rod. Learned counsel
further submitted that there is a case and counter-case between
the parties. On these grounds, the petitioners seek 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 heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the FIR, I find that there are specific allegations against
petitioner no. 1, Vinay Kumar, of assaulting the informant and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9829 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
his family members with an iron rod causing injuries, and
considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, I am not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner no.1 on pre-arrest bail.
7. So far as petitioner no. 2, Kundan Kumar, is
concerned, the allegations against him are general and omnibus
in nature with no specific overt act attributed to him, and
accordingly, I am of the opinion that petitioner no.2 has, prima
facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
8. The petitioner no.2, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending /
Concerned Court in connection with Derni P.S. Case No.
257/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.2 and if it is
found that the petitioner no.2 is involved in some other
cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9829 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
10. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…