Patna High Court
Sanjiv Rai @ Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court denied regular bail to the petitioners, finding the circumstances warranted continued custody.
Summary
The petitioners, Sanjiv Rai and Prabhu Rai, sought regular bail in a case registered as Nadi Police Station Case No. 76 of 2023, which involved offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 302, 307, 506 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners participated in an armed assault on a road blockage, firing rifles and pistols, resulting in the deaths of four persons and injuries to several others. The petitioners argued that the allegations were vague, that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail, and that multiple FIRs pertained to the same incident. The State contended that the petitioners were seen at the scene with weapons, were declared absconding with a reward notice, and that bail would jeopardise the investigation. After hearing both sides, the Court held that the seriousness of the offences and the evidence against the petitioners warranted denial of bail at this stage, though they may re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioners given the seriousness of the offences and the evidence of their involvement?
- Does the existence of bail granted to other co‑accused affect the petitioners' right to bail?
- Do the reward notice and allegations of absconding justify denial of bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 342, 448, 506
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- Arms Act
- rioting
- murder
- attempt to murder
- armed assault
- high court
- denial of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6516 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2023 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Sanjiv Rai @ Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Rai Son of Late
Randevan Rai @ late Ram Devan singh @ Ramdeo Rai Resident of Village-
Jethuli, PS- Nadi, District - Patna
2. Prabhu Rai @ Prabhu Dayal Singh Son of Late Randevan Rai @ late Ram
Devan singh @ Ramdeo Rai Resident of Village- Jethuli, PS- Nadi, District -
Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
6 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection
with Nadi P.S. Case No. 76 of 2023 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 302, 307, 506
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the nephew of the
informant namely, Bittu Kumar was going towards the road from
his house on his four-wheeler. The road was blocked by the
henchmen of Ramesh Rai with sand and concrete. The nephew of
the informant requested Ramesh Rai and Satish Kumar @
Baccha Rai to clear the way on this, Baccha Rai, along with his
family member got infuriated and at the instance of Umesh Rai
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6516 of 2026(6) dt.21-04-2026
2/4
and his associates total of 30 in number and 15-20 unnamed
persons, armed with rifles and pistols, started firing. The
petitioners are also named and started firing with arms. The
nephew of the informant started fleeing away from there. On this,
all the accused persons went to the house of the informant.
Umesh Rai, Baccha Rai, Satendra Rai, Rampravesh Rai and his
family members started firing at the family members of the
informant. Raushan Kumar, Nagendra Rai, Jagendra Rai,
Jugehswar Rai, Munarik Rai, Chanarik Rai, and Rajendra Rai
received gunshot injuries and from the gunshot injuries, Gautam
and Raushan died on 19.02.2023, Munarik Rai died on
20.02.2023, and Nagendra Rai and Chanarik Rai were in PMCH.
It is reported that Chanarik Rai also died during the course of
treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the nature of the allegation is general and omnibus and there
is no specific allegation against the petitioners. It has also been
submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely,
Bhola Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Dilip Roy, Baiju Rai, Bijay Kumar,
and Rahul Kumar, have been granted bail by the learned Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court. It has further been submitted that
for the same occurrence, in fact, three FIRs were lodged
explaining the same. It is pointed out that the first FIR was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6516 of 2026(6) dt.21-04-2026
3/4
lodged as Nadi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2023, which was lodged by
the police In-charge of Nadi Police Station. Subsequently,
another FIR of the same occurrence was lodged as Nadi P.S.
Case No. 75 of 2023. The present and third case regarding the
same occurrence was lodged by the informant making a
statement before the police in the emergency ward of PMCH,
Patna, where his father was admitted and died subsequently. He
further submits that petitioner no. 1 is languishing in judicial
custody since 21.05.2025 whereas petitioner no. 2 is in custody
since 30.04.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Pranav
Kumar, learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the
bail of the petitioners and have stated that the bail petition of
Umesh Rai and Aryan Kumar have been refused by the learned
Coordinate Benches of this Court and have also filed an
advertisement which goes to show that on these petitioners a
reward of Rs. 50,000/- was declared by police as they were
absconding. It has further been submitted that during the course
of investigation, it has also come out that both petitioners were
seen in the place of occurrence with arms, which is apparent
from Paragraphs 76, 77, and 78 of the case diary and also the
statements recorded by SIT in Paragraphs 167, 168, 169, and
170.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6516 of 2026(6) dt.21-04-2026
4/4
6. Though it is a case of indiscriminate firing, altogether
four persons have succumbed to the injuries, and many others
have received firearm injuries, and these two petitioners were
seen by the witnesses at the place of occurrence being armed
with weapons and the advertisement which has been filed by the
side of the informant also goes to show that they were
absconding, and that is why the advertisement in the paper has to
be published, and a reward of Rs. 50,000/- was also announced.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this
court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this
stage, however, they may renew their prayer for bail after six
months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for application of regular
bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 09.04.2026
Uploading Date 21.04.2026
Transmission Date 21.04.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.