Murat Ray @ Manish Kumar Ray @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40819 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-675 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== Murat Ray @ Manish Kumar Ray @ Manish Kumar Son of Late Surendra Ray Resident of Village- Bisati, P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nalin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and apprehending his arrest in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 675/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per FIR, petitioner alleged to receive the deceased from Chapra Railway Station for village Desari, where on way petitioner along with other co-accused persons open fired upon deceased namely Ajad Singh @ Bhishm Rai leading his death on spot, the alleged occurrence was captured in nearby CCTV footage, where co-accused person seen to open fire upon the deceased and this petitioner was also seen waiving firearm in his hand.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as petitioner was in good terms with deceased he went to receive Ajad Singh @ Bhism Rai at Chapra Railway Station. It is submitted that as per FIR the allegation of firing is available

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40819 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 2/2 against co-accused Nand Kishore Rai and Pappu Rai and, therefore, the implication of this petitioner with present crime in question is only out of previous enmities. It is submitted that petitioner was not related with deceased Shailesh Rai, who was alleged to be killed in year 2025 and therefore, the implication of this petitioner is completely un-occasional or under the misconception of facts which were gathered wrongly by the informant. Petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR, where CCTV clearly shows that this petitioner was also waiving firearm along with other accused persons during the occurrence suggesting active involvement in present occurrence of murder along with other co-accused persons. It is also pointed out that post-mortem report shows that death of deceased was caused by firearms.

6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as petitioner as per CCTV footage found waiving firearm in air at the time of occurrence suggesting his active involvement with the crime in question, accordingly prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner stands rejected.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) S.Tripathi/- U T