Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46333 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Rai, S/o Late Nageshwar Rai, Resident of villagePaharpur, P.S- Garkha, Distt.- Saran (Chapra) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-11-2025 A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Advocate for the informant, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. The informant is represented through Mr. Ram Binod Singh, learned Advocate.
3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 308(2), 324(4), 324(5), 303(2), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. Allegedly when the informant reached his Godown situated at Paharpur, in the meanwhile, the petitioner along with two others came there and started abusing and threatened to pay
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46333 of 2025(4) dt.18-11-2025 2/3 a Rangdari of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the same was resisted, the accused persons further came along with spade and Bamboo. On the exhortation of the petitioner, other two accused persons brutally assaulted the informant, due to which he sustained fracture injury on his leg.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the F.I.R. contended that save and except the petitioner, alleging to be an order giver, has not participated in the crime. The injury, which is said to be grievous in nature, caused to the informant, the same has not been attributed to the petitioner. There is a counter version of the present case, being Garkha P.S. Case No. 99 of 2025, against the informant and others. There is pending land dispute and false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submit that besides the fact the petitioner has suppressed two criminal antecedent, the petitioner all along carrying nine criminal antecedent. To support the aforesaid contention, a counter affidavit has also been filed. It is further contended that it is the petitioner, on whose dictate the entire incidence took place, due to which the informant sustained grievous injury.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46333 of 2025(4) dt.18-11-2025 3/3
7. Having considered the submissions set forth by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the criminal antecedent and the active participation of the petitioner, this Court is not acceded to the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T