Umesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53542 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2024 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Umesh Rai S/O Baban Ray R/O Village- Pakaha, P.S- Baikunthpur, Dist.- Gopalganj.

2.

Om Prakash Rai @ Om Prakash Yadav S/O Lalan Ray R/O Village- Pakaha, P.S- Baikunthpur, Dist.- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025

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

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that accused persons on account of dispute relating to land assaulted his uncle (Sadhu) and grandfather (Vishwanath) by knife causing injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53542 of 2025(2) dt.19-08-2025 2/2 the informant. It is further submitted that no specific allegation of assault is alleged against the petitioners. It is next submitted that a Panchayati was convened on account of the dispute which had arisen between the parties when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the injuries suffered by uncle and grandfather of the informant have been opined to be grievous. It is also submitted that petitioners may not have assaulted the injured, but then they were present at the place of occurrence which emboldened the accused to commit the occurrence.

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

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T