Patna High Court
Bhuar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Bhuar Rai, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered in 2013 (FIR No. 126) alleging offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and Arms Act section 27. He claimed innocence, stating he had been working in Punjab since 2010 and was unaware of the case until his return. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the 13‑year lapse since the FIR. The petitioner could not produce any document proving his Punjab employment. The Court, noting the long delay and the seriousness of the charges, refused to grant anticipatory bail, but directed that if he surrenders within four weeks, the trial court should consider his surrender‑cum‑bail application on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR is 13 years old and the accused has not demonstrated any compelling reason for the delay.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of being employed out of state without documentary proof affects the bail consideration.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay
- FIR
- IPC
- Arms Act
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12428 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2013 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Bhuar Rai S/o Rama Rai R/o vill - Nakta Diara, P.S.- Digha, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Digha P.S. Case No. 126 of 2013 lodged on 08.06.2013, for
the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of
the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, pending
in the Court of C.J.M. Patna.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
seven named accused persons including the present petitioner. It
has been alleged in the FIR that the accused persons have killed
the informant’s son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
submits that the petitioner has been made accused in this case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12428 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
unnecessarily. The petitioner was working in Punjab since 2010,
and he was completely unaware about the fact that criminal case
has been filed against him. Counsel submits that when he
returned back to his house, then only he became aware about the
criminal case and then he started persuading for this case.
Counsel further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent
and one of the accused person has been acquitted after
completion of trial. Counsel further submits that other accused
persons have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide orders dated 13.01.2014, 03.11.2014, 10.07.2015 &
19.01.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 41700 of 2013, Cr. Misc.
No. 25386 of 2014, Cr. Misc. No. 15529 of 2015 & Cr. Misc.
No. 48323 of 2015 with Cr. Misc. No. 50845 of 2015
respectively.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that the present FIR is of the
year 2013 and after 13 years, the petitioner has moved for
anticipatory bail.
6. Upon the specific query of this Court that whether
any document or pleading made that the petitioner is working in
Punjab since 2010, counsel for the petitioner submits that no
such pleading or document is available with the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12428 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case
considering that the present FIR is of the year 2013 and
currently, 2026 is going on and petitioner is also named in the
FIR, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
hereby rejected.
8. However, if petitioner surrenders before the
concerned Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today
then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his
surrender-cum-bail application on the same day considering the
documents available on record, without being prejudice that the
anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this
Court. The Trial Court shall pass order on the merit of this case.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…