Surendra Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30377 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2025 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Surendra Ray Son of Haari Mohan Rai Resident Of Village- Jahari Pakari Kewari Kala, P S -Amnaur, District -Saran At Chapra 2.
Usha Kumari Daughter of Surendra Rai Resident Of Village- Jahari Pakari Kewari Kala, P S -Amnaur, District -Saran At Chapra 3.
Sugia Devi Wife of Hari Mohan Rai Resident Of Village- Jahari Pakari Kewari Kala, P S -Amnaur, District -Saran At Chapra 4.
Hari Mohan Rai Son of Singhasan Rai Resident Of Village- Jahari Pakari Kewari Kala, P S -Amnaur, District -Saran At Chapra 5.
Lalsa Devi Wife of Shambhu Rai Resident Of Village- Jahari Pakari Kewari Kala, P S -Amnaur, District -Saran At Chapra 6.
Bablu Kumar Son of Surendra Rai Resident Of Village- Jahari Pakari Kewari Kala, P S -Amnaur, District -Saran At Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ravindra Nath Dubey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Amnaur P.S. Case No. 332 of 2025 for the offence punishable under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 74, 329(3), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(3) of the BNS lodged on 13.11.2025 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
2/4 the petitioners is that they along with other accused persons assaulted the informant by means of Khanti on his hand due to which his hand got broken. On hearing his cries, his brother and mother came, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that specific allegation of assault is against petitioner no.1 who has assaulted the informant, Sanoj Rai, who is said to have sustained injuries on his hand and the said injuries have been found to be grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1, Surendra Ray is ready to provide the financial support for the injuries sustained by the informant without accepting his guilt at the time of furnishing his bail bond. With regard to other petitioners being petitioners no.2 to 6, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against them are general and omnibus and all the petitioners have got clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner no.1, Surendra Ray is ready to provide financial support of Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries sustained by the informant and also
3/4 considering the fact that allegation against petitioners no.2 to 6 are general and omnibus in nature, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- by petitioner no.1, through demand draft issued by the local State Bank of India in favour of the informant which shall be handed over after checking his credentials.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saran at Chapra in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
4/4 (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T