Patna High Court
Niraj Kumar Rai @ Neeraj Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of tampering justified refusal.
Summary
Niraj Kumar Rai applied for anticipatory bail in a case (Sonepur P.S. Case No. 943 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The informant alleged that Rai had previously stabbed him in a separate case (Case No. 937 of 2025) and later assaulted him with the butt of a pistol, causing head injury. Rai contended that the informant was using the criminal process to settle a personal dispute and that the charges were false. The State argued that granting bail could enable Rai to tamper with evidence. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the allegations serious enough to warrant the petitioner’s continued custody. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged serious offences and the risk of evidence tampering
- Whether the allegations made by the informant constitute a false case or a genuine criminal complaint
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false case
- assault
- evidence tampering
- B.N.S. sections
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19162 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-943 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Niraj Kumar Rai @ Neeraj Kumar Rai S/O Tarkeshwar Rai @ Truck Rai R/O
Village- Kalyanpur, P.O- Baijalpur, P.S- Sonepur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan
Ms.Priyanka Singh
Ms.Eashita Raj
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Sonepur P. S. Case No. 943 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352,
351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of three cases and the informant
alleges that on 06.09.2025, Deepak along with petitioner
attempted to snatch his bike. On protest, the accused stabbed
him for which Sonepur P. S. Case No. 937 of 2025 was
instituted. It is next alleged that the accused persons including
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19162 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
the petitioner were pressurizing to compromise the earlier case
but informant refused, thereafter on 16.09.2025 at 7.00 P.M.
when informant was returning from Sonepur when he was
intercepted by the named accused persons including the
petitioner and petitioner assaulted him by butt of pistol causing
injury on head.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that a dispute in between the
petitioner and the informant is already going on and a false case
by the informant has been instituted against the petitioner and
others being Sonepur P. S. Case No. 937 of 2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that informant specifically alleges
that earlier he was stabbed for which Sonepur P. S. Case No.
937 of 2025 was instituted in which petitioner is also an accused
and petitioner along with others were pressurizing the informant
to compromise the said case but when informant refused, the
instant occurrence was committed i.e. petitioner assaulted him
by butt of pistol causing injury on head. It is also submitted that
if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may try
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19162 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
to tamper with the evidence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court
is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…