Majnu Ray @ Akhilesh Ray @ Majnu @ Akhilesh Kumar @ Manju Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9471 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2024 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Majnu Ray @ Akhilesh Ray @ Majnu @ Akhilesh Kumar @ Manju Rai S/O Chandradeep Rai @ Chandradip Rai R/o- Chakiya Kotwapatti, Rampur, P.SDoriganj,Dist-Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.05.2024 at 3.30 P.M., the son of the informant, namely Vikash Mahto and some villagers went to Gadhaiya Sand Mines to work there where firing took place to establish supremacy on mining of sand in which some persons got injured by bullets. The informant went there and found his son and Sudarshan Rai got injured by bullets in the said firing and died during their treatment. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9471 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026 2/3 alleged that the informant and Tulsi Rai, the father of Sudarshan Rai, went to hospital and found that the bullets hit 3-4 places on the bodies of the deceased. They also came to know that at Kamaluchak Gadhaiya Balu Ghat, the incident of firing took place between the group of Satyendra Pandey, his son Niraj Pandey and Guddu Rai and in the said incident, the informant's son Vikash Mahto and Sudarshan Rai died due to injuries of bullet and one Purnmashi Ram, the villager of the informant also sustained injuries of firearms in the said incident.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. Name of petitioner transpired during investigation only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Saroj Ray, who has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72230 of 2024. Moreover, charge-sheet has already been submitted and petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State the prayer for bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9471 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026 3/3 parity and period of custody, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, let the petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 210 of 2024.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T