Puttu Rai @ Puttur Rai @ Ravi Kumar @ Pintu Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31861 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2024 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Puttu Rai @ Puttur Rai @ Ravi Kumar @ Pintu Rai S/O Sakulu Rai @ Shakaldev Rai Resident of Village- Mahadev Chak Semariya, P.S.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, Adv.
Ms. Shweta, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard the parties.
2. Application for grant of bail to the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 208 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 385, 386, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. While the informant was bringing sand through tractor for the construction of temple, which was driven by one Ravindra Kumar, all the accused persons, including the petitioner, came there and started demanding Rs.500/- from the driver of the tractor. On protest being made, co-accused Guddu Rai assaulted the tractor's driver on the chest by means of butt
2/4 of the rifle. It is further alleged that on 29.04.2024 at about 11:00 P.M. all the accused persons arrived at the house of the informant and made indiscriminate firing. The informant any how saved his life. On instigation, co-accused Guddu Rai and Siyaram Bind fired upon the driver of the tractor due to which he sustained firearm injury over his jaw. It is also alleged that on the firing made by the petitioner, the informant has sustained a firearm injury over one of his finger.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the prosecution case to the extent of causing fire arm injury over the finger of the informant is concerned, it falls to the ground for the simple reason that there is no such injury found during the course of investigation. So far the allegation of demand of rangdari that has been levelled against all the accused persons and taking note of this fact, co-accused persons Saroj Ray @ Saroj Rai and Dharmendra Rai @ Dharmendra Kumar have been extended the privilege of regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 73631 of 2024 and further in Cr. Misc. No. 24780 of 2025. It is further contended that now the petitioner has been incarcerated since 27.01.2025 and the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been submitted.
3/4
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that apart from the allegation of causing indiscriminate firing, the petitioner is carrying five criminal antecedent over his head.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the case of the petitioner is based on parity, coupled with the omnibus nature of allegation and now the investigation is already complete, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara at Bhojpur in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 208 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.
4/4 (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) 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 antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T