Patna High Court
Sudama RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court denied pre‑arrest bail to petitioners 2 and 3, but granted bail to petitioner 1 subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Sudama Rai, Chanchan Yadav and Chennai Yadav, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 96/2025) alleging offences under numerous sections of the BNS, the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and the Arms Act. The FIR alleges that the petitioners, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the informant’s house, assaulted the informant and her family, and that a co‑accused fired at the informant’s husband. The petitioners claim they are innocent, victims of political rivalry, and that any injury caused was minimal and in self‑defence. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. The court denied pre‑arrest bail to petitioners 2 and 3, but granted bail to petitioner 1 subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of his antecedents, with the order to lapse if further involvement is found. The application was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to each petitioner given the nature of the alleged offences and their criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- BNS — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 127(2), 303(2), 324(3), 324(4), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 61(2), 62, 64(1), 76
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal procedure
- self‑defence
- political rivalry
- multiple offences
- bail conditions
- Section 482(2) of BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60583 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Sudama Rai Son of Lakchan Rai R/o village - Bakhari Bairagi Tola, P.S.-
Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran
2. Chanchan Yadav @ Chanchal Yadav @ Chanchan Rai Son of Chandrika Rai
R/o village - Bakhari Bairagi Tola, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - East
Champaran
3. Chennai Yadav @ Ram Chandra Yadav Son of Ramadhar Rai R/o village -
Bakhari Bairagi Tola, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manju Devi Wife of Jagarnath Rai Resident of Village - Bairagi Tola,
Bakhari P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satyendra Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Satyendra Prasad,
learned APP for the State and Mr. Karandeep Kumar along with
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of
the Informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 96/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 127(2), 61(2), 115(2),
118(1), 118(2), 109, 329(4), 64(1), 62, 76, 303(2), 324(3),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60583 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
324(4), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS; Sections 4,6 of Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 27 of Arms
Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioners armed with deadly weapons arrived at the house of
the informant and assaulted the informant, as well as, her family
members and one of the co-accused namely Birdendra Patel also
fired bullet targeting upon the husband of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners and
informant are co-villagers and the petitioners have been
implicated in the case due to political rivalry. He further
submitted that a general and omnibus allegation has been
levelled against the petitioners. The petitioners, in their self-
defence, may have caused some injury on the person of the
informant. The nature of injury is simple. The present case is a
counter-blast of the case lodged by one of the co-accused
namely Shivpujan Rai bearing Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.93 of
2025. On these grounds the petitioners seek to be released on
pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60583 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR against petitioner nos.2 and 3 and considering
their criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner nos.2 and 3 on pre-arrest bail.
7. So far as, the petitioner no.1 is concerned, having
perused the allegation made in the FIR, and the nature of injury,
which is simple in nature, petitioner no.1, in his self-defence,
may have caused some injury on the person of the informant,
the petitioner no.1, above named, is directed to be released on
pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned District Court where the case is pending / Concerned
Court in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 96/2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.1 and if it is
found that the petitioner no.1 is involved in some other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60583 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…