Patna High Court
PINTU RAI @ PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU RAYversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners, finding prima facie involvement in the offence.
Summary
The petitioners, Pintu Rai and Deepak Rai, were named in an FIR for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that they overtook and stopped the vehicle of an informant and his deceased relative, after which co‑accused Rajiv Rai and Bhola Rai opened fire, killing the informant's grandson. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, contending that the fatal assault was attributable only to the co‑accused and that they had no specific overt act, also pointing out that one co‑accused had been acquitted and that they were already involved in other cases on bail. The State, represented by the APP, argued that the petitioners were in the same vehicle as the shooters, were seen running from the scene with pistols, and therefore had prima facie involvement. The Court examined the FIR, statements of independent witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., and concluded that the factual matrix indicated the petitioners' participation in the crime. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, directing that any regular bail be considered by the trial court after surrender, without prejudice to its observations.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate legal standard for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in light of the alleged prima facie involvement in the murder?
- Whether the presence of the petitioners in the same vehicle and the witness statements constitute sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- Arms Act 27
- prima facie involvement
- bail jurisprudence
- Cr.P.C. 161
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25740 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. PINTU RAI @ PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU RAY S/O LATE GANESH
RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAGIRATHPUR (WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS VILLAGE- MUSEPUR IN THE FIR), POLICE
STATION- KALYANPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR
2. DEEPAK RAI @ DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK RAY S/O LATE
SURESH RAY R/O VILLAGE- MUSSEPUR, P.S- KALYANPUR, DISTT.-
SAMASTIPUR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv
: Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP
For the Informant : Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv
: Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 28-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Warisnagar
(Mathurapur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per FIR, petitioners along with other co-accused
persons overtook the vehicle of informant and deceased and after
stopping their vehicle two named co-accused namely Rajiv Rai &
Bhola Rai opened indiscriminate firing causing death of grandson
of informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25740 of 2024(4) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
4. It is submitted by Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned sr.
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that allegation of
fatal assault is available against co-accused Rajiv Rai and Bhola
Rai. It is pointed out that informant is the eye-witness of the
occurrence, but no specific overt act appears attributed against
these petitioners. While concluding arguments, it is submitted that
above named petitioner no. 1 found involved in four more criminal
cases and petitioner no. 2 found involved in six more criminal
cases with same informant and his relative, where they are on bail.
Arguing further, it is submitted that main co-accused namely Rajiv
Rai facing specific allegation in terms of FIR has been acquitted
after facing the trial by the learned Trial Court.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the
informant while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that these
petitioners came on spot with same vehicle with Rajiv Rai and
Bhola Rai and after overtaking stopped the vehicle of the
informant and deceased, whereafter co-accused Rajiv Rai and
Bhola Rai opened indiscriminate firing causing death of grandson
of the informant. It is submitted that this conduct of petitioners
suggest their prima-facie involvement qua present crime in
question. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the
informant drew attention of this Court towards statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25740 of 2024(4) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
independent witnesses as recorded u/S 161 of the Cr.P.C. during
course of investigation, which is part of paragraph no. 41 & 42 of
the case diary, where witnesses specifically alleged that these
petitioners were found running from the place of occurrence
having pistols in their hand.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
note of fact as petitioners were in the same vehicle with co-
accused which caused fatal firearm injuries after stopping the
vehicle of informant and deceased coupled with fact, petitioners
were found running with pistols in their hand immediately after the
occurrence, accordingly prayer of anticipatory bail of both above
named petitioners stands rejected.
7. Learned Trial Court may consider the prayer of
regular bail of both above named petitioners in accordance with
law, upon surrender without being prejudiced from any of the
observations made by this Court while disposing the present
anticipatory bail application.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…