Dinesh Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25457 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1202 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

Dinesh Ray S/o Late Kapil Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran.

2.

Upendra Ray @ Upendra Kumar Son of Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran. 3.

Babloo Ray @ Babloo Kumar Son of Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran. 4.

Nishu Ray @ Nishu Kumar S/o Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran.

5.

Ravi Ray @ Ravi Kumar S/o Dinesh Ray R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S. -Sonepur, District - Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 1202/2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 118(1), 352, 308(3),351(2),3(5), of the BNS.

3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the informant had taken a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-, which he

2/4 subsequently repaid in full along with interest. However, despite such repayment, the accused persons allegedly came to the informant's house and continued to demand money. It is further alleged that they assaulted the informant, and when his wife came to rescue him, she was also assaulted. Additionally, the accused persons allegedly attempted to outrage the modesty of the informant's wife.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that no such occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, has taken place. Rather, the true facts are that the informant had entered into an agreement to sell a piece of land in favour of petitioner no. 1 on 02.09.2024. Pursuant to the said agreement, the informant received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from petitioner no. 1. A copy of the agreement to sell dated 02.09.2024 has been brought on record as Annexure P/2. It is contended that the dispute is of a civil nature, relating to recovery of the said amount along with interest, which the informant has failed to repay. It is further submitted that, with an intention to avoid repayment, the informant has falsely implicated the petitioners by instituting the present FIR on baseless allegations. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations regarding assault upon the informant and destruction of evidence are wholly false

3/4 and have been made only to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, it appears that the dispute primarily arises out of a transaction relating to land, for which an agreement to sell dated 02.09.2024 was executed between the parties. It is also evident from the record that the informant has admitted, to the extent that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was received by him from petitioner no. 1. The informant having not paid the said amount, in his defence, appears to have lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have, prima facie, made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like

4/4 amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Saran, Chapra / Concerned Court in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 1202/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U T