Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83267/2025dismissed

Tej Narayan Rai @ Tejo Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-05Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83267 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Tej Narayan Rai @ Tejo Rai S/o- Late Basudeo Rai Village- Mktiyarpur Salkhanni PS- Dalsingsarai Distt-Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 335 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30813 of 2025, which reads as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 335 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. The petitioner is involved in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83267 of 2025(5) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 kidnapping of the victim. The victim was kept in a room and thereafter she was raped also. Thereafter, the accused persons got a sale deed executed from the victim.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. He does not deny the execution of sale deed. The allegations are supported by the victim in her statement made under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed."

4. Considering the gravity of the offence and also the fact that no fresh ground for grant of bail is made out, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

5. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T