Jhigan Ray @ Jhingan Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8189 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-324 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Jhigan Ray @ Jhingan Rai S/O Late Manirkha Ray R/O Vill.- Mathiya Bariyarpur, P.S.- Piprakothi, Dist.- East Champaran. 845429 2.
Priya Kumari D/O Jhigan Ray @ Jhingan Rai R/O Vill.- Mathiya Bariyarpur, P.S.- Piprakothi, Dist.- East Champaran. 845429 3.
Pintu Kumar S/O Jhigan Ray @ Jhingan Rai R/O Vill.- Mathiya Bariyarpur, P.S.- Piprakothi, Dist.- East Champaran. 845429 4.
Priya Devi W/O Pintu Kumar R/O Vill.- Mathiya Bariyarpur, P.S.- Piprakothi, Dist.- East Champaran. 845429 5.
Mintu Kumar S/O Jhigan Ray @ Jhingan Rai R/O Vill.- Mathiya Bariyarpur, P.S.- Piprakothi, Dist.- East Champaran. 845429 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mohd Rustam Hussain, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is allowed to withdraw the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 3, Pintu Kumar.
2. The anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 3, Pintu Kumar stands dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Heard Mr. Mohd. Rustam Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP and Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant.
4. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
2/4 connection with Piparkothi P.S. Case No. 324 of 2025 for the offence under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 303(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS lodged on 24.09.2025 by the informant, Kaushal Rai.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that when he was sitting near his door, the accused came armed variously and allegation against Pintu Kumar is of attacking the informant causing injury while Mantu Kumar gave knife blow on the hand, the other accused including Dhigan Rai and Priya Kumari assaulted on the arms and back with the iron rod. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that main allegation is against Pintu Rai and the injury inflicted by him has been found to be grievous in nature and the other injuries have been found to be simple in nature. Further, none of the petitioners have criminal antecedent and two of them are ladies who have been dragged in the present FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer submitting that so far as Pintu Kumar is concerned, he gave blow to the informant and the injury duly received by him, has been found to be grievous in nature.
6. Considering the submission of the parties main
3/4 allegation is against Pintu Kumar whose anticipatory bail stands dismissed as withdrawn, the others do not have criminal antecedent, the injury inflicted has been found to be simple in nature and they have undertaken to diligently appear in trial, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Piparkothi P.S. Case No. 324 of 2025 subject to the following conditions: (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official document (Aadhaar Card/Voter ID Card/Pan Card/Driving License) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
4/4 Station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T