Bachha Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49505 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2025 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Bachha Ray S/o Achchhelal Ray R/o Village- Chheni Chhapra, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran at Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No.14/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 109, 76, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and on account of dispute relating to cutting of bamboo, it is alleged that petitioner assaulted the informant by Dabiya causing injury on her forehead.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, on account of dispute, relating to land. It is also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49505 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 submitted that the blow was not repeated.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that informant suffered lacerated wound of size 6x2x1 c.m. on forehead and thereafter she was taken to SKMCH hospital, Muzaffarpur for treatment, which amply demonstrates that the blow caused by the petitioner inflicted major wound on vital part of the body of the informant.

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

7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T