Patna High Court
Sunil RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and dismissed the quashing application.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Rai, was charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and offences under the Arms Act for the killing of Sunil Kumar Singh on 27 September 2020. The prosecution alleged that Rai, along with co‑accused, conspired due to enmity and shot the deceased, relying on witness testimony and a confessional statement of a co‑accused. The petitioner contended there were no eye‑witnesses, no material evidence and that rival criminals were responsible. The High Court examined whether the material on record satisfied the requirement of Section 227 of the CrPC for sufficient grounds to proceed. Citing the Supreme Court’s test for "sufficient ground", the Court held that the evidence disclosed a case for trial and dismissed the petition to quash the charge. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the proceedings against the petitioner continue.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to discharge the petitioner on the basis of lack of eyewitness or material evidence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- common intention
- Arms Act
- Section 227 CrPC
- quash petition
- evidentiary sufficiency
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2570 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-265 Year-2020 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan
======================================================
Sunil Rai S/O Jagdish Rai @ Jagdish Narayan Parsad Rai R/O vill.-
Bagauchha, P.S- Maharajganj,Dist.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
03.12.2025 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions
Judge-V, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 49/2021 arising out of
Daraunda P.S. Case No. 265 of 2020 whereby the learned trial
court has refused to discharge the petitioner from the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, namely,
Sumit Kumar Singh alleged that on 27.09.2020, at about 01:00-
02:00 P.M, his villager Bhim Sah informed his family members
from his mobile and the family members of Bhim Sah informed
other villagers that his father, namely, Sunil Kumar Singh has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2570 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
2/4
been murdered near Karsaut Bridge. On this information, the
informant, his family members and the villagers rushed to
Karsaut Bridge, where his father was lying dead and sustained 8
to 10 bullet injuries. It is further alleged that the informant’s
father was the present Mukhiya of Balaun Panchayat and his
villagers Pradeep Yadav, Sunil Rai (petitioner) and Satyendra
Yadav had a lot of enmity with the informant’s father and they
had threatened to commit murder of his father and in this regard,
an information was also given to the Maharajganj Police
Station. It is further alleged that the informant is under full
belief that they have hatched a conspiracy and committed
murder of his father. It is further alleged that on that day, his
father went to Siwan to board the villager Prabhu Yadav on train
and in course of returning, petitioner, co-accused persons along
with some unknown miscreants murdered him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a
matter of fact there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence,
there is no iota of tangible falling material against the petitioner,
in fact, some unknown criminals have killed the deceased and
since petitioner is a Mukhiya of the neighbouring panchayat, he
has been made accused to wreak vengeance. The deceased was a
man of criminal background and he was killed by some rival
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2570 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
3/4
criminals.
5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that there are
ample materials against the petitioner, witnesses have supported
the case against the petitioner and the confessional statement of
co-accused Satyendra Yadav also goes to show that petitioner
was involved in this case. The case is under Section 302 coupled
with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The deceased was killed by the
gunshot injury.
6. This Court finds that there are sufficient grounds
for proceeding against the petitioner as the case was found true
during the course of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed
and cognizance was also taken upon such submissions of the
chargesheet.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another
reported in (1978) 11 SC CK 0020, has observed that : Section
227 of the Code runs thus:-
“If, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2570 of 2026(2) dt.11-03-2026
4/4
discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing. The words ‘not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused’ clearly show that the Judge is not a
mere post office to frame the charge at the
behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise
his judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial
has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not a necessary for
the court to enter into the pros and cons of
the matter or into a weighing and balancing
of evidence and probabilities which is really
his function after the trial starts. At the stage
of Section 227, the Judge has merely to shift
the evidence in order to find out whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The sufficiency of
ground would take within its fold the nature
of the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the court which
ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him.”
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, this quashing application is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…