Munmun Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29347 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2026 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Munmun Ray S/o S/o Gaibi Ray @ Gaibi Nath Ray @ Uma Shankar Ray R/o Village - Prasastdih, Ward No.-1, P.S.-Sabour, Dist. - Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Akhilesh Kumar Ray S/o Nityanand Ray R/o Village - Prasastdih(Ward No.- 1), P.S. - Sabour, Dist. - Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Onkar Nath, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sabour P.S. Case No. 44 of 2026 dated 08.02.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section/s 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of assaulting the Informant and his father due to which they sustained injuries. It is further alleged that the petitioner snatched a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the pocket of the Informant while co-accused
2/4 Nutan Devi snatched golden chain from the Informant's neck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. It is next submitted that for longstanding land dispute, the occurrence is said to have taken place for which there is title suit pending between both the parties. It is further submitted that the injuries which are said to have been sustained by the Informant and his father have been found to be simple in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner, being a family member, does not want to elongate the dispute any further and, without accepting the guilt, proposes to extend financial assistance by paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the injured persons, namely, the informant and his father, with a view to bring the dispute at rest. Counsel for the petitioner further undertakes that so long the matter pertaining to title dispute is pending, the petitioner would not commit such incident in future. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has one antecedent in which he is on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
3/4 that the injuries sustained by the injured persons have been found to be simple in nature as well as the fact that the petitioner is willing to extend financial assistance by paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the injured persons, let the petitioner, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in connection with Sabour P.S. Case No. 44 of 2026, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(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
4/4 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 their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) rishi/- U T