Lal Babu Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20865 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Lal Babu Rai S/O Suggi Rai. Resident of Saidabad, P.S-Raghaopur, DistrictVaishali. 2.
Rubi Devi W/O Bhullu Rai. Resident of Saidabad, P.S-Raghaopur, DistrictVaishali. 3.
Darpaniya Devi @ Darpan Devi W/O Suggi Rai. Resident of Saidabad, P.SRaghaopur, District-Vaishali. 4.
Ashok Rai @ Ashokh Rai S/O Jamahir Rai Resident of Saidabad, P.SRaghaopur, District-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP For the informant :
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the informant besides learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 for the offence registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 117(4), 109, 75, 303(2), 352, 351(3)/ 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on the minor problem between the children, the elders intervened and the allegation is that on the order of Suggi Rai,
2/4 Bhullu Rai attacked the informant by the handle of the water pump causing injury on his right hand which got fractured. Further, the wife of the informant was assaulted by Mukesh Rai by the handle of the water pump causing head injury to her. Allegation against Jamahir Rai is of taking away gold chain while Mukesh Rai and Ravi Kumar misbehaved with the informant's daughter. As villagers started coming, the accused persons resorted to pelting stones. The injured were shifted to PMCH, which followed the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that admittedly, the role has been assigned to Suggi Rai as an order giver, Bhullu Rai of attacking the informant as also Mukesh Rai of assaulting the wife. So far as the injury of informant is concerned, it has been found to be simple in nature while that of the wife has been recorded as grievous. The submission is that none of these accused are before this Court rather the other family members have come who have no criminal antecedent and no specific role assigned.
5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submits that with common intention, they resorted to assault which also reflects from the FIR.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
3/4 the facts that have been recorded above which shows that Suggi Rai, Bhullu Rai and Mukesh Rai are part and parcel of the attack, they are not before this Court, no specific role has been assigned to these petitioners, in that background, this Court is inclined to grant them the anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioners in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID) to show his 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 his bail bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 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;
(iv) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T