Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Pandey @ Rahul Pandey @ Sonu PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Pandey, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR claims a family dispute over property led to an extortion demand, after which the petitioner allegedly shot his mother’s house, resulting in the death of the informant’s grandmother, who was also the petitioner’s grandmother. The petitioner contended that the informant, his uncle, fabricated the allegations to coerce the family and that no independent witnesses implicated him. The court noted the petitioner’s clean antecedent, the lack of corroborative witness testimony, and the possibility of false implication, while also noting the informant’s non‑cooperation. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including bail bonds, sureties, and the possibility of cancellation if the petitioner fails to cooperate or if a charge‑sheet is filed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement is substantiated by evidence or is a false implication arising from a family property dispute.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- extortion
- family dispute
- false implication
- Section 302 IPC
- Arms Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64025 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2023 Thana- JALALPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Pandey @ Rahul Pandey @ Sonu Pandey S/o Ranvijay Pandey
R/o Village- Nehru Chaok, P.S.- Chapra Town, District- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay- A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 08-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. The S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the
case, in compliance of the order dated 08.12.2025, are present in
the Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that accused persons were demanding Rs.2
Lacs from his mother, on refusal, Ranvijay Pandey gave orders
to kill, on which Rahul Kumar Pandey (petitioner) shot his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64025 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
2/7
mother causing injury on chest while Rohit Pandey fired at the
informant but missed. Further, his mother died during the course
of treatment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that informant has tried to give an impression that three
accused persons i.e. Ranvijay Pandey, Rahul Pandey and Rohit
Pandey came to his house and Ranvijay Pandey started
demanding extortion of Rs.2 Lacs from his mother and on
refusal, he gave orders to kill based on which, Rahul Kumar
Pandey (petitioner) fired causing death of the mother of the
informant during the course of treatment, but then, it is
submitted that Ranvijay Pandey is own brother of the informant
and petitioner and Rohit Pandey are his own nephew and are
having dispute relating to property. It is further submitted that
the entire family members have been implicated i.e. Ranvijay
Pandey as an order giver, petitioner as an assailant and Rohit
Pandey is alleged to have fired at the informant but missed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
merely because petitioner is alleged to be main assailant, if that
persuades the Court not to grant the privilege of anticipatory
bail, in that event, the same would amount to travesty of justice
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64025 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
3/7
as the facts of the case also needs to be appreciated. It is further
submitted that the deceased is own grandmother of Rahul
Kumar Pandey, but then, informant, for reasons best known, has
not disclosed the said relationship in the FIR rather has given an
impression as if, criminals were demanding money and on
refusal, the occurrence was committed. It is next submitted that
the deceased was staying with the informant and it may be a
possibility that the occurrence took place in some other manner
and the informant took the same as an opportunity to implicate
the entire family of his brother in order to coerce him into
submission or else the informant would have disclosed in the
FIR itself that petitioner being his own nephew killed his own
grandmother.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits
that the case was taken up on 24.09.2025 when the aforesaid
order was recorded based on which the S.H.O. and the
Investigating Officer of the case were directed to remain
physical present before the Court on 09.10.2025. It is next
submitted that on 09.10.2025, the S.H.O. and the Investigating
Officer of the case were present in the Court and it was
submitted that they had joined recently, as such, they sought
sometime. Accordingly, the case was directed to be listed on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64025 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
4/7
08.12.2025 and the interim protection granted to the petitioner
was continued, but the police was not barred from investigating
the case and the S.H.O. and the I.O. of the case were directed to
remain physically present before this Court on 08.12.2025 at
2.15 P.M. It is next submitted that the S.H.O. and the
Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance of the order
dated 09.10.2025, were present in the Court on 08.12.2025 and
it was specifically submitted by them that the side of the
informant is not cooperating in the investigation, thus had
sought some more time. Accordingly, the case was directed to
be put up on 08.01.2026 i.e. today.
8. Today, when the case is taken up, the S.H.O. and
the Investigating Officer of the case, who are present in the
Court submitted that the side of the informant still is not
cooperating in the investigation. It is next submitted that after
the occurrence, the further statement of the informant was
recorded wherein he had stated the same facts as alleged in the
FIR, but after the case was taken up by this Court, the statement
of the informant was again recorded on 15.12.2025, wherein for
the first time, the informant disclosed the relationship of the
accused persons including the petitioner with the deceased. It is
further submitted that during the course of investigation the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64025 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
5/7
statement of independent witnesses were also recorded, but
then, they have not alleged against the petitioner and his family
members
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage,
reiterates and submits that the petitioner, being own nephew of
the informant, has been falsely implicated in the instant case
with his entire family in order to coerce his father into
submission so that the property dispute in between the parties is
resolved under coercion. It is also submitted that what is not in
dispute rather stands admitted is that grandmother of the
petitioner was killed, but then, who killed her and under what
circumstance are an aspect of investigation. It is next submitted
that no doubt, petitioner is alleged to be the assailant of the
deceased, but then, as submitted and recorded herein above the
informant being his own uncle implicated him falsely. It is also
submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate
in the investigation to prove his innocence.
10. Learned A.P.P. after perusing the case diary
is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that during the
course of investigation, no independent witnesses have alleged
anything against the petitioner and his family members and that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64025 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
6/7
petitioner is own grandson of the deceased, but then, submits
that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It
is submitted that at Para-3 of the anticipatory bail application, it
is pleaded that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent when
he has antecedent of one case, on which the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the deponent
of the case may not be aware of the pending case against the
petitioner, but then, that in itself should not be a ground for
rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner when
the allegation and the circumstance in which the FIR came to be
instituted is not inspiring confidence.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-
bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Jalalpur P. S. Case
No.199 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.
12. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64025 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
7/7
13. However, it is made clear that in the event, if
any application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the
learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner, despite
giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the
investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required,
the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds
of the petitioner after recording reasons.
14. It is further made clear that in the event, if charge-
sheet is filed connecting the petitioner with the offence, in that
event, the present anticipatory bail order shall loose its effect.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
concerned Police Station through the learned trial Court.
16. The personal appearance of the S.H.O. and the
Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…