Rajeev Ray Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 24-06-2026

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No.228 of 2025, F.I.R dated 03.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

According to prosecution case, on 03.11.2025 at about 5:00 A.M., the informant's 11-year-old daughter was allegedly taken away from her house by Neetu Kumari and Amrita Kumari. When the girl did not return, the informant searched for her and was initially informed by Neetu Kumari and Amrita Kumari that she had gone back home. During the search, one Ramlakshman Rai informed the informant that

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30231 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026 2/4

¶17

Nitish Kumar and Rajeev Rai (petitioner) had taken the minor girl on a green Apache motorcycle towards Dekuli. When the informant and his family questioned the accused persons, they allegedly abused and threatened them and disclosed that Neetu Kumari, Rajeev Rai (petitioner), and Nitish Kumar had kidnapped the minor girl with the intention of marrying her.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated 13.05.2026, case diary and statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. was called for and from the said statement, it appears that the victim was in love with Nitish Kumar and at her instance, both of them had gone to Haryana and stayed there for 5 ½ months while there is no allegation of any forceful act and as also sexual assault and the victim has not named this petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are totally false and fabricated. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

¶19

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the victim was in love with Nitish Kumar and there is nothing specific against this petitioner as is apparent from the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30231 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026 3/4

¶22

statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. and the petitioner has clean antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 S.D.J.M, Sheohar, in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No.228 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-

¶24

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;

¶25

(ii) the petitioner(s) 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 his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

¶26

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30231 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026 4/4

¶28

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;

¶29

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.

¶30

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶31

sharun/-

¶32

U T

Rajeev Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Tuntun Prasad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Nimmi Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Anmol Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanju Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Siddharth Shankar @ Siddhu @ Siddharth Kumar Vs The State of Bihar