Monu Ray @ Manu Ray @ Mou Ray @ Mony Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10739 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-706 Year-2024 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Monu Ray @ Manu Ray @ Mou Ray @ Mony Ray S/O Lalbabu Ray R/O Village- Fatanour Bhainsmara, Police station- Garkha, District- Saran (Chapra).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Narsingh Tanti, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Narsingh Tanti, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 109 and 3(5) of the Brartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the informant has stated that on 10.11.2024, the named accused persons including the petitioner had thrown cracker bomb twice upon the informant with an intention to kill and the second bomb inflicted severe injury on the right hand of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10739 of 2025(5) dt.18-06-2025 2/3 the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to longstanding dispute. It has further been submitted that the injury, though is said to be grievous, however, the same is on the fingers of the right hand i.e. a non-vital part of the body. The learned counsel further submits that there was no intention to kill the informant as a cracker bomb is said to have been thrown on him. The learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and is in custody since 20.12.2024.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that on account of the bomb thrown upon the informant, the right hand of the informant has been damaged due to the same and hence the petitioner does not deserve liberty of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and taking into account that the injury has been inflicted on a non-vital part of the informant and as well as the period of custody, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10739 of 2025(5) dt.18-06-2025 3/3 connection Garkha P.S. Case No. 706 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative and the other shall be local resident. (ii) The petitioner 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 petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned. (iv) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Siwani/- U T