Patna High Court
Brijnath Rai @ Brijnath Ray @ Bijnath Ray @ Bijnath KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, given the lack of eyewitness testimony, the time discrepancy in the post‑mortem report, and no evidence of tampering, the petitioners are entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Brijnath Rai and Ashok Rai, were charged with murder, kidnapping and conspiracy under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita in connection with the death of the informant's son. The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped and strangled the victim, whose body was later found hanging near the informant's house, and that a motive existed due to a prior assault on the informant. The petitioners argued that the allegations were implausible because the body was displayed in front of the informant’s house, the post‑mortem indicated death within 72 hours, and there was no eyewitness to the crime. The State relied on a diary entry made three months after the incident and a witness who claimed to have seen the accused with the victim. The court noted the lack of direct eyewitness, the time‑discrepancy in the post‑mortem report, and the absence of any allegation of tampering, and consequently ordered the release of the petitioners on bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder‑kidnapping case where the prosecution evidence is largely circumstantial and lacks an eyewitness.
- Whether the discrepancy between the post‑mortem time of death and the alleged date of kidnapping defeats the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the alleged motive, being stale, affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita — s. 103, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- kidnapping
- evidentiary discrepancy
- post‑mortem report
- lack of eyewitness
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42281 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2025 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Brijnath Rai @ Brijnath Ray @ Bijnath Ray @ Bijnath Kumar S/o Late
Ganaur Rai @ Ganaur Ray Resident Of Village- Chak Jamal, Ward No 7,
Ps- Desari (Sahdei OP), Dist- Vaishali
2. Ashok Rai @ Ashok Ray S/o Shobhit Rai @ Ram Sobhit Rai @ Shobhit
Ray Resident Of Village- Chak Jamal, Ward No 7, Ps- Desari (Sahdei OP),
Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivjee Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nagendra Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 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
(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 bridge 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42281 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/3
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
against the petitioners appears to be stale one. Petitioners have
one criminal antecedent and are in custody since 16.05.2026.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42281 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
3/3
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
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.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.