← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15532/2025bail rejected

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-09Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13659 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2024 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Ray S/o Ram Barai Ray @ Barai Ray R/o VillManas Naya Panapur, P.S- Akilpur, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13663 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2024 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran ====================================================== Ranjan Ray S/o- Ram Barai Ray @ Barai Ray Village- Manas Naya Panapur P.S- Akilpur District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 15532 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2024 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ray Son of Ram Barai Ray @ Barai Ray Village -Manas Naya Panapur P.S -Akilpur District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13659 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13663 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 15532 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13659 of 2025(2) dt.09-05-2025 2/3

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pahleja P.S. Case No. 67 of 2024 dated 08.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 380, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that he heard the sound of gun shot at 1.00 A.M. on 07.06.2024 after which he came out and saw the petitioners and the coaccused persons, taking the belongings from the house of Sunaina Devi including her buffaloes. Further the allegation is that as she ran to save her buffaloes, the petitioners namely, Ranjan Rai, Rajesh Rai and Pankaj Rai opened fire from country made pistol causing her death immediately. Accordingly the FIR is registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2440 of 2025. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13659 of 2025(2) dt.09-05-2025 3/3 para 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that the specific allegation of firing is against the petitioners, Rajesh Ray, Ranjan Ray and Pankaj Ray due to which Sunaina Devi received gunshot injury and fell down and succumbed to her injury. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The petition is rejected and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within six weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider his prayer for regular bail in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

7. The application stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T