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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40579 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2026 Thana- Chhaudahi District- Begusarai ====================================================== Dilip Kumar Ray @ Dilip Kumar S/O Late Kishun Deo @ Krishna Dev Ray Resident of Village - Bad Bakhadda, Ward No.- 7, P.S- Chhaurahi,DistBegusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Bipin Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Chhaurahi P. S. Case No.23 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109(1), 74, 303(2) of the B.N.S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that named accused persons including the petitioner came and started abusing. On protest, petitioner assaulted him by an iron rod causing injury on head while Mannu assaulted by rod causing injury on nose and accused assaulted her son and Subodh snatched her chain.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40579 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026 2/2

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that though it is alleged that petitioner assaulted the informant by an iron rod causing injury on eye and face, but then on account of dispute relating to land the informant falsely implicated the petitioner.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that there is a specific allegation against this petitioner of assaulting the informant causing injury on eye and face and from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the injury has been opined to be grievous in nature.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T