Patna High Court
Pramod RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Pramod Rai applied for anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for allegedly assaulting and causing the death of an informant's son using an iron rod. The prosecution alleges that Rai, along with other accused, committed the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner contended that he is innocent, has no prior criminal record, and that the informant is not an eye‑witness. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner’s alleged participation in the assault. The Court examined the gravity of the alleged crime and the petitioner’s role as an alleged assailant. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, finding no sufficient ground to grant relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the allegations of offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 109, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- murder
- B.N.S.
- Sections 103
- Section 109
- Section 61
- Section 3
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4983 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Pramod Rai Son of Late Lalji Rai Resident of Village- Ganesh Sirisiya, P.S.-
Chakia, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1),
109, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner, abused
and assaulted son of informant by means of iron rod due to
which he died.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence and petitioner has falsely been implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4983 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
case merely on suspicion. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
with specific accusation that he, along with other accused
persons, assaulted son of informant due to which he died.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, fact that petitioner is one of the assailant of the deceased
and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…