Ganesh Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23340 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2023 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ganesh Ray S/o Late Maheshwar Ray R/o Village- Chiknauta, PS- Karja, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the informant.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 272 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 13.08.2023 by the informant, Ranjit Kumar Rai.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that as he was in the field and the buffaloes were grazing grass, due to earlier dispute, the petitioner came armed variously with other accused and assaulted with rod on the head, as a result whereof, he fell down when Nawesh Ray assaulted, he tried to stop, left hand was also damaged.
4. The allegation is of indiscriminate assault which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23340 of 2025(4) dt.13-08-2025 2/2 led to the FIR.
5. In this case, the coordinate bench had called for the case diary which is available.
6. Learned counsel for the informant has taken this Court to the injury report to show that multiple injuries have been found in the parietal bone and fracture has also been recorded.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in custody since 22.12.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.
8. Considering the kind of allegation that has come against him of having assaulted on the head on an unarmed innocent person, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T