Patna High Court
Kameshwar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Kameshwar Rai, was charged under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B) and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a violent incident on 29 January 2021 in which two persons were killed. The FIR alleges that the petitioner, along with others, apprehended the informant's son who was subsequently shot dead, and later, while fleeing, the petitioner allegedly fired at another victim who also died. The petitioner, who has five prior cases, sought regular bail, contending that the allegations of firing against him are not specific and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences, the prior criminal record, and the four‑year delay between the incident and the petitioner's arrest. The Court noted a prior bail order for a co‑accused but held that the facts here differ, particularly the lack of a clear allegation of firing against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, finding the petition insufficient to merit release. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the offences and his antecedent criminal record
- Whether the FIR sufficiently alleges that the petitioner fired a weapon, justifying denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 302
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- murder
- rioting
- criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- antecedent
- trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12057 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2021 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Kameshwar Rai Son of Lal Babu Rai Resident of village - Lalua, P.S.-
Ghorasahan, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore @ Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B)
of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of five cases and the informant alleges
that on 29.01.2021, at 10.00 p.m., accused persons including the
petitioner came variously armed along with 25-30 unknown
accused and Lalbabu Rai, Rajeshwar Rai and petitioner caught the
son of the informant, namely, Amit Lal Yadav. It is next alleged
that Rajeshwar Rai fired killing the son of the informant on the
spot. Further, on alarm, villagers gathered on which the accused
persons started fleeing and while fleeing Kameshwar Rai, Lalbabu
Rai and Suraj Kumar shot Gama Rai who also died at the spot.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12057 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant
alleges that petitioner along with Lalbabu Rai and Rajeshwar Rai
had caught his son Amit Lal Yadav and thereafter Rajeshwar Rai
fired killing his son on the spot and when villagers gathered the
accused persons started fleeing when petitioner along with
Lalbabu Rai and Suraj Kumar shot Gama Rai, his nephew who
also died at the spot but then allegation of firing against petitioner
is not specific. It is next submitted that petitioner is in custody
since 21.08.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner
has antecedent of five cases. It is further submitted that though
there is no specific allegation of firing against the petitioner but
then two persons were killed and the informant alleges that this
petitioner along with Rajeshwar Rai and Lalbabu Rai had caught
the son of the informant whom Rajeshwar Rai shot killing him on
the spot and thereafter while fleeing this petitioner along with
Lalbabu Rai and Suraj Kumar also fired causing death of Gama
Rai. It is next submitted that the case is of the year 2021 and the
petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2025, as such, for four years, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12057 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
petitioner was evading the law.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that Lalbabu Rai had also approached this
Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 71761 of 2021
and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 18.01.2023 on
which learned A.P.P. submits that from perusal of the order dated
18.01.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 71761 of 2021, it would manifest that
the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had recorded that there
is no allegation of firing gun shot against the petitioner but then
the same is not the correct fact.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection
with S. Tr. No. 846 of 2024 arising out of Ghorashan P.S. Case No.
41 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/Successor Court.
8. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…