Patna High Court
Rakesh GiriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Giri, was charged under Sections 130(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing a weapon that injured the father of an informant. The informant identified Giri as the assailant, while also naming three others, and the trial had already commenced with witnesses being examined. Giri, who has 14 prior criminal cases and has been in custody since 5 May 2025, applied for bail. The State argued that granting bail would risk his absconding or tampering with evidence, especially given the seriousness of the offences and his antecedents. The Court, after considering the submissions, found no sufficient ground to release him and consequently rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences, his antecedent record, and the fact that trial is underway.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 130(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- serious offences
- antecedent record
- trial commencement
- risk of tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4997 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2024 Thana- MALI District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Rakesh Giri S/O Janardan Giri R/O Vill.- Ankhoraha, P.S- NTPC khaira,
Dist.- Aurgangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Rathour
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mali
P.S. Case No.222 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 130(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of 14 cases and is in custody since
05.05.2025 and the informant alleges that petitioner fired
causing firearm injury on head of his father, while they were
coming back from Aurangabad by car and informant identified
the petitioner as assailant and also identified Mantu, Kamlesh
and Sanjay but was not able to identify other two accused who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4997 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
were wearing helmet, thereafter he informed his uncle, who
came with villagers and the dead body was brought home.
4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that trial has commenced and
witnesses are being examined. It is also submitted that specific
allegation of firing is against the petitioner. It is next submitted
that why a son would lie that his father was killed by petitioner
had petitioner not been the assailant. It is also submitted that if
privilege of bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond or try to tamper with the evidence. It is further
submitted that petitioner has antecedent of 14 serious cases.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that trial
has commenced and witnesses are being examined.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. The bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…