Patna High Court
Nandu RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Nandu Rai, the petitioner, was in custody for offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 448, 201 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, arising from a shooting incident linked to a land dispute in Sahar. The prosecution’s case is based on the informant’s statement that the petitioner was among a group that fired on the informant and his son, resulting in the son’s death. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no incriminating material was recovered from him, and that the informant’s statement was recorded a day after the incident despite immediate forensic actions. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the prolonged pre‑trial detention since 30‑05‑2025 and the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed several conditions. The order also clarified that any observations made would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the grave nature of the offences and his criminal antecedents
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, based solely on the informant’s statement, warrants continued detention
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 307, 447, 448
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- murder
- attempt to murder
- rioting
- criminal conspiracy
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1586 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2024 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Nandu Rai Son of Arvind Rai Resident of Vill.- Perhap, P.S.- Sadar, District-
Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Sahar P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024 registered for
the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 307,
302, 448, 201 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that named male accused persons entered his Dalan
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1586 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
where he was sitting with his son and on account of previous
enmity, the accused being agnates fired, on which the informant
and his son fled inside their house, thereafter, Priyanshu,
Deepak and Sonu fired indiscriminately causing injury to his
son, thereafter Diwakar, Vishnu, Suman, Parmatma, Nandu
(petitioner) and Chhotak along with three to four unknown
accused also fired at the informant and his son who was lying on
the ground while the informant was watching the occurrence
from the window, it is next alleged that his son was declared
dead by the doctor and informant was referred to Dr. Vikash for
better treatment.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that he has falsely been implicated in this case as an
afterthought. It has been submitted that the statement of the
informant was recorded on the second day, despite the fact that
the seizure, inquest and the postmortem was prepared on the
same day and very meticulously the name of thirteen named
persons and three to four unknown have been taken by the
informant to be participants in the present incident. It has
further been submitted that there is an admitted land dispute
between the informant and the other accused persons, however,
the present petitioner has nothing to do with the dispute with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1586 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
regard to the partition. It has also been submitted that no
incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel further
submits that even if the allegations are taken on its face value,
there is specific allegations upon three persons, namely,
Priyanshu Kumar, Deepak Rai and Sonu Kumar, who have fired
upon the deceased. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2025 and carries two
criminal antecedents.
5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances
of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has
remained in custody since 30.05.2025, let the petitioner, above-
named, be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the
case is pending/successor Court in connection with Sahar P.S.
Case No. 78 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1586 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned
Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail
bond.
(v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation
of his bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed
for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…