Allowed

Upendra Ray v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Aug 2022CR. MISC./2082/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted permission for withdrawal of an application by petitioner no. 8 for Cr. Misc. No. 2082 of 2022. For the remaining applicants involved in an FIR regarding a land dispute and alleged assault, the Court directed surrender within six weeks for release on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted for withdrawal of application by petitioner no. 8. Anticipatory bail granted to remaining petitioners on surrender within six weeks.

Upendra Ray Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2082 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2021 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali

¶3

======================================================

¶4

UPENDRA RAY Son of Sakal Dev Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.- Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶5

Dilip Ray @ dilip Kumar Son of Upendra Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.- Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶6

Binod Ray @ Binod Kumar Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.- Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶7

Raju Ray @ Raja Kumar Son of Nagendra Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.- Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶8

Mahendra Ray Son of Nagendra Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶9

Karam Ray @ Karam Ray @ Param Ray Son of Mewa Lal Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.- Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶10

Dinesh Ray Son of Nagendra Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶11

Nagendra Ray Son of Mewa lal Ray Resident of Village - Chhaukia, P.S.Gangabridge, Distt.- Vaishali.

¶12

... ... Petitioner/s

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶15

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶16

======================================================

¶17

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kritu Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER

¶18

3 08-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP

¶19

for the State.

¶20

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application for petitioner no.8.

¶21

Permission is granted.

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2082 of 2022(3) dt.08-08-2022 2/3

¶23

Accordingly, the instant application as against petitioner no.8 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶24

However, petitioner no.8 is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of eight weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass the order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law.

¶25

Now, this application is being heard with regard to petitioner nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 only.

¶26

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal.

¶27

Allegedly, the petitioners with other co-accused persons reached at the door of the informant and started abusing in filthy language. When the informant protested the matter, all the accused persons assaulted him due to which he sustained injuries.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are quite innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive of informant and his family members. The allegation leveled against the

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2082 of 2022(3) dt.08-08-2022 3/3

¶30

petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature There is a case and counter-case between the parties. There us an admitted land dispute between the parties. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. Petitioners namely Dilip Ray, Binod Ray, Mahendra Ray, Dinesh Ray have one criminal antecedent and petitioners Raju Ray and Karam Ray have no criminal antecedent, as also mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

¶31

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since there is an old dispute between the parties, let the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 named above, in the event of their arrest/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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below, where the case is pending/Successor court, in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S Case No.96 of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

¶33

shikha/-

¶34

U T

Upendra Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Mobin @ Md. Mobin Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Tuntun Bind Vs the State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Binda Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Ramji Thakur Vs The State of Bihar