Patna High Court
Shyam Nath Rai @ Shivnath RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that regular bail could not be granted at this stage and rejected the bail application.
Summary
The petitioners, Shyam Nath Rai and Sanjeet Kumar Rai, were charged under multiple sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 for assaulting an informant and others during a land‑related dispute. They have prior criminal antecedents—nine and six cases respectively—and have been in custody since December 2025. Their earlier attempt to obtain anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court, after which they surrendered but were already subject to processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners argued that the allegations were false and that the injuries were not severe enough to warrant denial of bail. The State opposed regular bail, citing the petitioners' criminal history and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant regular bail, noting the seriousness of the offences and the risk factors, but allowed the petitioners to re‑apply after charge‑framing.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioners despite prior criminal antecedents and the nature of the offences.
- Whether the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82, 83
Subjects
- regular bail
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- land dispute
- prior criminal antecedents
- risk of absconding
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16473 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2024 Thana- SHIVAJINAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Shyam Nath Rai @ Shivnath Rai Son of Manoj Kumar Rai @ Manoj Rai @
Manoj Kumar Ray R/o Village - Dasaut, P.S - Hathauri, District -
Samastipur, Bihar.
2. Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Rai Son of Surendra Rai R/o Village - Dasaut,
P.S - Hathauri, District - Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant, Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109,
303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of nine
cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of six cases and are in
custody since 27.12.2025. It is next submitted that informant
alleges that accused persons came and Shyam Nath Rai @ Shiv
Nath Rai (petitioner no. 1) along with Sanjit Kumar Rai @
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16473 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
Sanjit Rai (petitioner no. 2) assaulted by an iron rod causing
injury on head of the informant, thereafter, Sanjit Kumar Rai
assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on chest and waist,
further Ram Sagar Rai snatched chain of the informant and
when Santosh came to save him all accused assaulted him.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that petitioners had earlier
moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 49401 of 2025 and the same came to be
rejected by an order dated 11.08.2025, against which the
petitioners filed SLA (Crl.) No. 13616 of 2025 and the same
came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order
dated 04.09.2025. It is next submitted that thereafter the
petitioners surrendered before the learned Trial Court, but by
then process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C were already
issued.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that on account of dispute relating to land,
the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case
by the informant, on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that the land dispute is in
between Santosh and his step brother, Vinod Kumar Rai and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16473 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
petitioners are neither related to Santosh or Vinod. It is further
submitted that the informant of the instant case was sitting at the
doors of Santosh when the accused persons including the
petitioners came and thinking that Santosh is supported by the
informant, as such, he was assaulted brutally leading to grievous
injury.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan
Prasad, opposes the regular bail application of the petitioners
and submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have antecedent of nine
cases and six cases respectively and if privilege of regular bail is
granted, the petitioners may abscond or try to tamper with the
evidence, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that no doubt allegation is of assaulting
the informant and Santosh, but then the assault is not alleged to
be repeated and one of the injuries of informant has been opined
to be grievous and the injury suffered by Santosh has been
opined to be simple in nature.
7. At this stage, the learned APP reiterates and
submits that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the
petitioners, they may abscond.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16473 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
9. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to
renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.
10. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…