Patna High Court
Raju RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner as the court was not inclined to enlarge bail in view of the grievous injury caused and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Rai, was charged under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at the son of an informant, causing a grievous injury to the lower back. The informant also alleged that a co‑accused, Amrendra Rai, assaulted him with the butt of a pistol, and that the FIR contained inconsistencies. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the injury report was from a private hospital and that a co‑accused had been granted bail in a related matter. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the firearm injury and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. Justice Soni Shrivastava considered the facts, the nature of the injury, and the petitioner’s prior record and declined to grant bail, though she permitted a fresh bail application after the charge‑sheet is framed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the applicable provisions of the B.N.S. and the Arms Act given the grievous nature of the injury caused by firearm discharge.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offence preclude the grant of bail at this stage.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- grievous injury
- firearm offence
- criminal antecedent
- Arms Act
- Section 27
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4183 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2025 Thana- Bahoranpur District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Raju Rai S/o Late Rajendra Rai Resident of Village- Damodarpur, P.S.-
Bahoranpur, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar
: Mr. Amarendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh
For the Informant : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 61(2) of the
B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Petitioner is said to have fired on the son of the
informant which hit on the lower back.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation on the petitioner is that he opened fire upon the son of
the informant and when the informant intervened, co-accused
Amrendra Rai assaulted him with the butt of the pistol. It has
been submitted that the present case is a counter blast of the
case filed by the brother of the petitioner with regard to killing
of his another brother Dharmendra Kumar Rai in which the
present injured Sujit Kumar Rai was also an accused. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4183 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
further submitted that an absurd story has been stated in the FIR
that the assailant had gone to the police station along with the
informant. Further, the injury report of the informant and his son
no doubt indicates grievous injuries but the injury reports are of
a private hospital. It has also been submitted that the co-accused
Amrendra Rai who caused grievous injury on the informant has,
however, been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83399 of
2025. The petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2025 and the
charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have opposed the application for bail on the
ground that the injury sustained by both the injured persons is
grievous in nature and the petitioner is the author of at least one
of the injuries which is with regard to firearm injury received by
Sujit Kumar Rai.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner
was the one who had opened fire on the injured Sujit Kumar
Rai, coupled with the fact that he has criminal antecedent, I am
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4183 of 2026(3) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
Bhahoranpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2025.
7. However, the petitioner is granted the liberty to
renew his prayer for bail upon framing of charge.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…