Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Arbind Rai @ Bilai Rai @ Bilai RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court denied bail, dismissing the petitioner's application.

Summary

Arbind Rai was charged under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting a victim in the chest. He applied for bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial on 11 September 2025. The court noted that only two witnesses had been examined, the trial was delayed, and the petitioner was alleged to be responsible for the delay by not cross‑examining witnesses. Considering the seriousness of the alleged offence and the petitioner’s role in the trial delay, the court was not inclined to revisit its earlier order. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged shooting under the B.N.S. Act and the Arms Act.
  • Whether the alleged delay in trial caused by the accused affects the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • Arms Act
  • Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
  • trial delay
  • serious offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33262 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2025 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Arbind Rai @ Bilai Rai @ Bilai Ram S/o Late Chandrama Ray Resident of
                 Village- Koyal Police Station- Charpokhari District- Bhojpur

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Adv.
                                                  Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Adv.
                 For the State           :        Mr. Nirmala Kumari, APP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Amish Kumar 1, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-06-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail

                   in connection with S.Tr. No. 281 of 2025 arising out of

                   Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 15 of 2025 registered for the offence

                   under Sections 109 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 read with Section

                   27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was

                   rejected on 11.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 38368 of 2025 which

                   reads as follows:-

                                                    “Heard the learned counsel for the
                                             petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
                                                    2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
                                             with Charpokhri P.S. Case No. 15 of 2025
                                             registered for the offence under Sections 109,
                                             3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section 27 of
                                             the Arms Act.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33262 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
                                                        2/2




                                                      3. As per the prosecution case, the
                                              petitioner has shot at the victim which hit him in
                                              his chest.
                                                      4. The petitioner is in jail since
                                              29.01.2025.
                                                      5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
                                              submits that the petitioner is innocent and has
                                              falsely been implicated in this case as the victim
                                              and the petitioner are agnates.
                                                      6. Considering the direct allegations
                                              levelled against the petitioner of fired at the
                                              victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
                                              the petitioner.
                                                      7. Accordingly, this application is
                                              dismissed for the present.”
                                   4. In the trial, only two witnesses have been examined

                      and there is delay in trial.

                                   5. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that it

                      is the accused persons, who are delaying the trial and they are

                      not cross-examining the witnesses for which appropriate cost

                      has been imposed upon them by the Trial Judge.

                                   6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact

                      that the trial is being delayed by the petitioner, I am not inclined

                      to review my earlier order.

                                   7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

                                   8. As the informant is bringing witnesses, it is the

                      petitioner and his lawyers, who are duty bound to cooperate in

                      the trial.



                                                 (Sandeep Kumar, J)
sadique/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.