Madhusudan Ray @ Masudhan Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66301 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2025 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Madhusudan Ray @ Masudhan Ray S/o Parma Ray R/o Village - Garib Patti @ Garibapatti, Post - Kharika, P.S - Pahleja, District - Saran 2.
Guddu Ray @ Anarjit Kumar S/o Parma Ray R/o Village - Garib Patti @ Garibapatti, Post - Kharika, P.S - Pahleja, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pahleja P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged on 07.06.2025 by the informant, Usha Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons came and on petty issue started abusing. Upon opposition, Soni Devi caught hold of her hair and later, Madhusudan Rai (petitioner no.1) gave iron rod blow
2/4 on her head causing injury. When the other family members came to rescue, the allegation is that Guddu Rai (petitioner no.2) assaulted Gajadhar Rai. They were referred to Referral Hospital, Sonepur, which followed the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to the injury report to show that the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Sonepur has recorded the injuries to be simple in nature. Admittedly, there is land dispute, both the petitioners do not have criminal antecedent. Last submission is that without accepting the allegation or outcome of the present petition, the petitioners intend to pay Rs.3,000/- each (totaling Rs.6,000/-) to the informant towards treatment by Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank to be submitted at the time of execution of bail bond.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that though the injuries are simple in nature, the allegation of assault is on both the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the aforesaid facts, injuries have been found to be simple in nature, the petitioners do not have criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- each
3/4 (totaling Rs.6,000/-) to the informant as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioners through Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank to be submitted at the time of execution of the bail bond and the same shall be handed over to the informant after checking the credentials.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Pahleja P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025 subject to the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T