Rajeev Kumar Ray @ Rajeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34821 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-944 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Ray @ Rajeev Kumar S/o Late Jyoti Ray @ Jyotilal Ray R/VDighi Kala, PS- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 944 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5)

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons allegedly intercepted the informant and his companions, assaulted them with sharp-edged weapons with an intention to kill, resulting in the death of one injured and grievous injuries to another.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34821 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026 2/2 incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that there are no corroborative materials on record to support the case of of the prosecution. The petitioner is in custody since 30.12.2025 and has got three criminal antecedents.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T