Rajesh Kumar Ray @ Ghantu Ray @ Rajesh Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73678 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2022 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Ray @ Ghantu Ray @ Rajesh Ray, S/O Vinod Rai @ Ram Vinod Ray, R/O Village- Morwa, P.O.- Morwa, P.S.- Tajpur, DistrictSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Indiwar Kumari, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 34 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 385, 387 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. There was a business rivalry between co-accused Madhuranjan Ojha with Sunil Kumar(informant) due to which two unknown miscreants caused 3-4 rounds of firing over the bus driver of the informant. The petitioner, said to be staff of Sunil Kumar had earlier threatened the informant and demanded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73678 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 2/3 a ransom of rupees two lakh alongwith others.

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that besides the fact the petitioner is a man of fair antecedent, the entire allegation revolves around suspicion. In fact, on account of earlier fight between the staffs of Madhuranjan Ojha, including petitioner with the informant and his staffs, the present FIR came to be instituted without there being any cogent material, only on suspicion. The allegation levelled in the FIR clearly suggest that two unknown persons have fired upon the driver and khalasi of the informant's bus. The petitioner further submits that now the good sense have been prevailed in both the parties and they do not want to proceed further in the matter.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that just before the occurrence the petitioner alongwith others had threatened the staff of the rival party.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the nature of allegation, coupled with the fair antecedent and no material complicity of the petitioner has been found in the course of investigation, let the petitioner above named be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73678 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 3/3 released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Samastipur in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 34 of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U T