Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27622 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Ray S/o Shailendra Ray @ Shailendra Rai @ Salinder Rai R/o Village - Maharajganj, P.S - Muffasil, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard Ms. Eashita Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohammed Arif, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 19.04.2025, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 838 of 2025 arising out of Chapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 148 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 15.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and later on Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. was added.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons have assaulted the nephew of the informant and later on nephew of the informant died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

2/4 allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that from perusal of the FI.R. it appears that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence had taken place. Although there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused person Bablu Ray have assaulted the nephew of the informant and later on the nephew of the informnat died. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.

but there is no specific allegatin against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused person and apart from that the postmortem report suggests that only one injury was found on the person of the deceased on his head which is not clear who has assaulted the deceased and as per allegation two persons have assaulted the deceased but only one injury was found on the person of the deceased. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

3/4

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Saran at Chapra in connection with Sessions Trial No. 838 of 2025 arising out of Chapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 148 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the 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 antecedents, 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

4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T