Lal Ray @ Murari Ray @ Lal Kumar @ Murari Kumar @ Lala Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65511 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2024 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Lal Ray @ Murari Ray @ Lal Kumar @ Murari Kumar @ Lala Ray S/o- Ram Niwas Ray@ Ram Niwas Rai @ Sri Niwash Ray Resident of Perhap P.SSahar, Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 61(2) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that 09.09.2024 at about 8.00 A.M. her husband Kamlesh Rai along with her Devar Manoranjan were going to Civil Court, Ara on a motorcycle and her husband was sitting as a pillion and when they reached near the house of Tuntun Rai, accused Priyanshu started indiscriminate firing and thereafter
2/4 Nandu, Chhotak, Murari and Deepak also started firing from their country-made pistol, it is next alleged that Sumant and Parmatma, who were lodged in jail had hatched the conspiracy to eliminate her husband, it is further alleged that Pawan, Suraj, Puja, Kiran, Kanti, Tuntun, Jeetendra and Bholu were involved in hatching conspiracy to kill her husband and Bholu @ Shubham Rai also fired from his country-made pistol at her husband and fled on an Apache motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but then with such precision has named several accused persons. It is next submitted that the statement of the brother of the deceased Manoranjan Rai has not been recorded nor he has received any injury. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable that brother of the deceased would not have received firearm injury, had such indiscriminate firing been made at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that Deepak Rai had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.21942/2025 and the same was allowed by a learned
3/4 Coordinate Bench by an order dated 15.05.2025. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Deepak Rai. It is next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence and petitioner is not a criminal.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sahar P.S. Case No.166/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at
4/4 liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T