Patna High Court
Pappu Rai @ Pappu Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court directed that pre‑arrest bail be granted if the medical opinion confirms no grievous head injury, subject to conditions and verification of any other pending cases.
Summary
The petitioners, Pappu Rai and Ajay Kumar Rai, were charged under several sections of the BNS for allegedly assaulting an informant and his family, causing injuries. They contended that the allegations were false, pointing out that the injuries were not on vital parts of the body and that the medical report did not support a head injury claim. The State and the informant opposed the grant of pre‑arrest bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the FIR, the nature of the injuries, and the petitioners' criminal antecedents, and directed the District Court to obtain a final medical opinion on the severity of the injury. It ordered that if no grievous head injury is found, the petitioners be released on pre‑arrest bail with conditions, and also directed verification of any other pending cases against them.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case involving alleged assault causing injury under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS.
- Whether the nature and location of the injury (non‑vital part, no head injury) warrant bail.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- assault
- grievous injury
- medical opinion
- criminal antecedent
- BNS
- sections 126,115,109,303,351,352,3
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10609 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2025 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
1. Pappu Rai @ Pappu Kumar Rai, aged about 31 years, Gender- Male, S/O
Dindayal Rai
2. Ajay Kumar Rai @ Ajay Rai, aged about 33 years, Gender-Male, S/O
Hareram Ray
Both are R/O Village- Godna More, P.S- Rivilganj, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, APP
For the informant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Anil Kumar
learned APP for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 312 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections
126(2),115(2),109,303(2),351(2),352,3(5), of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused
persons named therein including the petitioners have abused and
assaulted the informant and his family members, causing injury
to them.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10609 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel
further submitted that the allegation against Petitioner no. 1 is
that he assaulted the informant on the left hand with an iron
pipe. The injury was found on the middle finger and has been
opined to be grievous in nature, caused by a hard and blunt
substance. However, the said injury is not on a vital part of the
body. So far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the allegation
against him is that he assaulted the informant on the head with a
sword. However, the injury report does not record any sword
injury or any injury on the head and specific statement with
regard to the same has been made in paragraph no.9 of the bail
petition, which falsifies the entire prosecution story. Petitioner
no.1 has clean antecedent, whereas petitioner no.2 has one
criminal antecedents, in which, he is on bail. On these grounds,
petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel, has tendered
his appearance on behalf of the informant and has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Learned APP for the State also vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10609 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegations made in
the FIR, and also considering the fact that the injury sustained
by the informant is not on the vital part of his body and it has
been claimed in paragraph no.9 of the bail application that no
head injury has been found on the person of the informant, the
learned District Court is directed to call for the final opinion
of the doctor in respect of the injury sustained by the
informant and if it is found that there is no grievous head
injury on the person of the informant, then in that case, the
petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on pre-
arrest bail in connection with Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 312 of
2025 on such terms and conditions as the learned District Court
deems it fit and proper.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found
that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as
what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…