IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57736 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Pintu Ray S/o Kameshwar Ray R/o Village - Koilwar Ward no. 4, P.S - Koilwar, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiv Prasad Gupta, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ravi Kr., Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 21-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Koilwar P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections under Section 103(1), 61(2) of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. 3. As per the FIR, the married daughter of co-accused Nagendra Rai had love affairs with the deceased. The petitioner is brother of co-accused Nagendra Rai. Some days prior to the murder of the deceased, the petitioner and Nagendra Rai had come to the house of the informant and threatened that his son would be eliminated. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57736 of 2025(4) dt.21-11-2025 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The FIR itself shows that the petitioner is not the killer. He did not fire on the person of the deceased. The only allegation against him is that he hatched conspiracy of murder of son of the informant. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the co-accused persons committed murder of the deceased, in a deep conspiracy, hatched by the petitioner and his brother Nagendra Rai. 6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. kundan/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T