Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Ray @ Palta Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83313 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Ray @ Palta Rai S/O Late Arvind Rai @ Late Arvind Ray@ Lt Arvindra Ray R/O Village - Hasanpur Surat Tola, P.S- Patori @ Patory, Distt.- Samastipur,Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Madhav Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Ms. Khushi Awadh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Madhav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Khushi Awadh, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 17.09.2025 in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 10.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 352 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, all the accused
2/4 persons including this petitioner assaulted the son of the informant, looted cash worth Rs. 1,30,000/- and ornaments including gold chain and this petitioner fired upon him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the date of occurrence has alleged in the F.I.R is 09.04.2025 but the present F.I.R has been instituted on 10.04.2025. It appears from the F.I.R itself that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of suspicion. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather recovery of arms have been made near the place of occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 17.09.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries six criminal antecedents other than the present one but
3/4 fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in all the pending cases.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Shahpur Patori, Samastipur in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T