Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27156/2026bail rejected

Rajendra Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-23Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27156 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== Rajendra Ray S/o- Late Kishun Ray R/v- Dahiyawa Daragah Ps- Chapra Town Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Town P.S. Case No.20/2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 317(4), 111, 308(2), 132, 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 25(1-B_ (a) 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 30(a) and 45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases and allegation is of recovery of Rs.5,00,900/-, Android mobiles, Ear Buds, two knives and other articles as detailed in the FIR from house of Lakhan Rai, further 930 ml of liquor along with one country made pistol along with three sword from house of Raju Rai and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27156 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026 2/2 different mobiles and other articles as detailed in the FIR from house of Shatrudhan Rai. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated based on the fact that he is father of Lakhan Rai.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases of the year 1997, 2001 and 2015 and the articles as detailed was recovered from his son, hence the case requires to be investigated and interrogation of the petitioner is also necessary.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T