Mokhtar Rai @ Mokhtar Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53534 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Mokhtar Rai @ Mokhtar Ray S/o Late Hari Ray R/o Village Harinarayan Chhapra, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil ,District-Saran 2.
Manager Rai @ Mainejar Ray S/o Late Hari ray R/o Village Harinarayan Chhapra, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil ,District-Saran 3.
Mintu Rai @ Mintu Kumar S/o Saheb Ray R/o Village Harinarayan Chhapra, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil ,District-Saran 4.
Pintu Rai @ Pintu Ray @ Pintu Kumar Ray S/o Saheb Ray R/o Village Harinarayan Chhapra, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil ,District-Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ankur Prakash Sinha Mr. Piyush Saurav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala- A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have antecedent of one case and petitioner nos.3 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that accused Saheb Rai about 09 years ago
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53534 of 2025(2) dt.19-08-2025 2/3 had taken a loan of Rs.70,000/- for marriage of his daughter with a promise to return, but did not return the money. It is next alleged that the petitioners intercepted the informant and his brother while they were coming back after collecting Rs.15,000/- and all the petitioners assaulted them by lathi, sword, iron rod and stick causing injury and Mokhtar took away Rs.15,000/- and golden ring of his brother and also assaulted his wife and threatened not to ask for money.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable that as to why petitioners would have assaulted the informant after 09 years of taking the loan. It is further submitted that though it is alleged that all accused persons assaulted the informant and his brother, but then, the injury suffered by the injured is opined to be simple as would manifest from Annexure-2 series to the anticipatory bail application.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53534 of 2025(2) dt.19-08-2025 3/3 within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Chapra Muffasil P. S. Case No.226 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T