Sunil Kumar Rai @ Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32162 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Rai @ Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Ray S/o- Tejnarayan Rai @ Tejo Rai Resident of Village- Mokhtiyarpur Salkhani @ Moktiyarpur Salkhanni PS- Dalsingsarai @ Dalsingsaai Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Singh, APP Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, Adv Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rajendra Singh and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 335 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections s 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 17-2-2025. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that his daughter was staying with him as she was ousted from her matrimonial home, it is next alleged that on 12-7-2024 at 10

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32162 of 2025(7) dt.24-02-2026 2/3 PM, the accused persons including the petitioner came to his house and asked his daughter to accompany them on the pretext to get her meet with her husband, but then his daughter did not return, it is further alleged that thereafter a search was made, but the victim could not be found and thereafter the informant came to know that Tejo Rai got a sale deed with respect to a piece of land executed in the name of his wife through the victim, it is alleged that the informant fears that the accused persons under threat may get other lands also executed in their name by the victim by putting her under fear.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of occurrence is 12-7-2024 and the FIR came to be instituted on 29-10-2024. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable that had the victim been called by the accused persons including the petitioner and would not have returned thereafter, then an FIR would have been instituted immediately. It is further submitted that victim had instituted a case in the court of learned ACJM-I, Dalsinghsarai against her husband and in the said case, the victim was appearing and had appeared on 20-9-2024, but then the victim by way of afterthought after the sale deed was executed, got the instant FIR instituted through the informant with false allegation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32162 of 2025(7) dt.24-02-2026 3/3 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29-8-2025 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T