Patna High Court
Vishwanath RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail to both petitioners, directing their release upon furnishing the prescribed bond.
Summary
The petitioners, Raju Kumar and his father Vishwanath Rai, were charged under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita for the alleged kidnapping and murder of the informant's son, whose body was reportedly hung in front of the informant's house. The prosecution relied on a witness statement recorded three months after the incident and the post‑mortem report indicating death by strangulation. The defence argued that the allegations were implausible, highlighted a mismatch between the post‑mortem timing and the alleged kidnapping date, and noted the absence of any eyewitness. The State opposed bail, contending that the witness statement and motive were strong. After considering the statements, the period of custody, the filing of the charge‑sheet and the lack of any tampering, the Court ordered that both petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused persons charged with kidnapping and murder under the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita.
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- kidnapping
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita
- high court
- evidence
- post‑mortem report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91336 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2025 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Raju Kumar S/O Vishwanath Rai Resident Of Village Chakjamal, P.S.-
Desari, (Sahdei O.P.), Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2024 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2025 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Vishwanath Rai S/o Late Shankar Rai R/o Village- Chakjamal, P.S- Desari
(Sahdei O.P), Dist- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 91336 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State: Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2024 of 2026)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 As the both the cases arise out of the same FIR, at
the joint request of the parties, they are being heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the Informant and learned A.P.P. for the State in both
the cases.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Desari
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91336 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
(Sahdei) P.S. Case No. 234 of 2025, registered for the offences
under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay
Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, the son of the
informant was murdered by strangulation and his dead body was
hung underneath a puliya on a tree in front of the house of the
informant. It is alleged that, on 29.06.2025, the son of the
informant was kidnapped and these petitioners along with other
named accused persons and 4-5 unknown persons conspired to
kill the informant’s son. It is alleged that two years ago, they
had brutally assaulted the informant and had also threatened to
wipe out her heirs.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that on the face of it, the allegation against the
petitioners appears to be palpably false as it is not expected that
after killing the deceased his dead body would be hung in front
of the house of the informant. Moreover, the postmortem report
goes to suggest that the duration of death was within 72 hours
while the allegation of kidnapping is on 29.06.2025 and
recovery of dead boy is stated to be on 30.06.2025 at 09:00 am
and hence the time of death does not match with the allegations
levelled. There is no eyewitness to the case and the motive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91336 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
against the petitioners appears to be stale one. The petitioner of
Cr. Misc. No. 91336 of 2025 is in custody since 12.10.2025 and
he has clean antecedents, whereas petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.
2024 of 2026 is in custody since 07.12.2025 and he is accused
in one case, but not of similar nature, in which final form has
been submitted against him.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioners and submitted that during the course of investigation,
one witness, in paragraph 161 of the case diary, has stated that
on the fateful day, i.e., on 29.06.2025, he being a mason was
returning to his house, he saw the deceased in the company of
the petitioners and others and that witness was threatened with
dire consequences and was forced to flee away from the place of
occurrence and there is strong motive against the petitioners and
the postmortem report also suggests injuries on the person of the
deceased although the death has been opined to be caused by
asphyxia due to strangulation.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the statement recorded in paragraph 161 of the case
diary, which appears to have been made almost about three
months of the occurrence, and there being no eyewitness to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91336 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
occurrence, the period of custody, that the charge-sheet has been
filed in the case and there is no allegation of tampering, let the,
above named, petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-XI, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection
with Desari (Sahdei) P.S. Case No. 234 of 2025.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…