Patna High Court
Parmeshwar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Petitioners 1‑3 are granted pre‑arrest bail, while petitioner 4 is denied bail.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of Saran district, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a 2017 case (Garkha PS Case No.455) involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 504 of the IPC. The FIR alleges that petitioners 1‑3 assaulted the informant with a common intention to kill, while petitioner 4, along with co‑accused, allegedly killed the informant’s uncle. The trial court had added the petitioners as accused under Section 319 CrPC. The petitioners argued lack of specific incriminating material and a high likelihood of acquittal, seeking bail; the informant opposed bail citing seriousness and risk of evidence tampering. The High Court, applying principles of presumption of innocence and balancing factors from Supreme Court precedents, found the allegations against petitioners 1‑3 to be general and without specific overt acts, and therefore granted them pre‑arrest bail with conditions. However, due to the gravity of the allegation against petitioner 4, the Court denied him bail. The bail application was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to petitioners 1‑3 under Section 319 CrPC pending trial.
- Whether bail should be denied to petitioner 4 given the alleged homicide.
- Whether the delay of nearly one year in filing the bail application warrants denial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341, 379, 504
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 319 CrPC
- presumption of innocence
- bail jurisprudence
- IPC offences
- delay in bail application
- evidence tampering
- homicide
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.670 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2017 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Parmeshwar Rai Son of Ram Shakal Rai
2. Jitendra Rai Son of Rajnath Rai
3. Sunil Rail Son of Parmeshwar Rai
4. Surendra Rai Son of Gaya Rai
All resident of Village - Tahal Tola, P.S. - Garkha, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Avinash Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr.Aashish Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr.Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate
Mr.Anamika Anshu, Advocate
Mr.Rajnikant, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Learned Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Avinash Kumar Pandey and Mr.
Aashish Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Ms. Anamika Anshu and
Mr. Rajnikant, learned counsels for the informant and Mr.Ajit
Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with
Garkha P.S.Case No.455 of 2017 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307,
379 and 504 of the IPC.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.670 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/7
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
petitioners along with other co-accused persons with a common
intention to kill assaulted the informant and his other family
members, during which the uncle of the informant died on the
spot.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submitted that upon completion of investigation,
the charge-sheet was submitted only against seven accused
persons and in absence of any incriminating material, no charge-
sheet was filed against the present petitioners. It was further
submitted that during the course of trial, a petition under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the prosecution and
vide order dated 03.03.2025, the learned trial court summoned
the petitioners as additional accused persons.
5. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that although
the said order has not been challenged before this Court, the
petitioners are innocent and there is no material on record to
establish their complicity. It was further contended that while
invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned trial
court did not arrive at the requisite degree of satisfaction and
there is every likelihood that the petitioners may not ultimately
be convicted.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.670 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/7
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in
absence of cogent evidence, there is a strong likelihood of
acquittal of the petitioners and thus the petitioners deserve to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
7. Learned counsel referring to the FIR submitted that
there are general allegations against petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 of
assault upon the informant, who is an eye-witness. Petitioner no.
4 along with other co-accused persons, namely Umesh Rai,
Shriram Rai and Guddu Kumar, assaulted the uncle of the
informant, who died on the spot. Learned counsel further
submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant are simple
in nature and not corroborated by any strong supporting
evidence. Learned counsel also submitted that due to
inadvertence, certain pleadings could not be properly placed on
record by the Advocate-on-record, however, even considering
the materials available during trial, petitioner nos. 1, 2, and 3
have a fair chance of acquittal.
8. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that even in
serious offences under Section 302 of the IPC, the petitioners
fall within the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel has also
undertaken on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners will
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.670 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
4/7
abide by the conditions imposed by this Court
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR clearly
discloses that the petitioners with a common intention to kill
assaulted the informant and his other family members, resulting
into death of the informant’s uncle. It is further submitted that
the case is of the year 2017 and the learned trial court has taken
note of the fact that the petitioners had influenced the
Investigating Officer and tampered with the evidence. Learned
counsel also submitted that there is every likelihood of further
tampering with evidence if the petitioners are granted
anticipatory bail. Hence, they do not deserve to be released on
pre-arrest bail.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR, case
diary and order dated 03.03.2025, this Court finds that the
informant is an eye-witness, who has specifically alleged that
petitioner nos. 1, 2, and 3 assaulted him and as per the medical
evidence, the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in
nature. The present application has been filed after considerable
delay of nearly one year, for which no satisfactory explanation
has been given. Learned counsel fairly submitted that he is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.670 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
5/7
unable to justify the delay, though he reiterated that bail is the
rule and jail is the exception.
11. The Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227 of
2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided
on 06.02.2018 has held as under:
“1. A fundamental postulate of criminal
jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning
thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until
found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal
law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused
with regard to some specific offences but that is another
matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another
important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the
grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in
jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever
expression one may wish to use) is an exception”.
12. The Apex Court in Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs the
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (Criminal Appeal No. 97 of
2022) has observed that while granting bail, the relevant
considerations are (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii)
character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the
prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v)
likelihood of his tampering.
13. It is well settled that gravity alone cannot be a
decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.670 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
6/7
required to be balanced by the Court while exercising its
jurisdiction. “A person is believed to be innocent until found
guilty”.
14. It appears that petitioner nos. 1, 2, and 3 are
alleged to have participated in the occurrence. However, no
specific overt act has been attributed to them. The allegations
against these petitioners are general and omnibus in nature.
Accordingly, petitioner nos. 1, 2, and 3 are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, upon furnishing bail bonds of ₹10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J.-IX, Saran
at Chapra, or the concerned court, in connection with Garkha
P.S. Case No. 455 of 2017, subject to the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
15. The learned court below is directed to verify the
criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in case it is found
that they are involved in any other criminal case(s), as stated in
paragraph 3 of the bail application, this order shall automatically
stand cancelled.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.670 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
7/7
16. So far as petitioner no. 4 is concerned, there is a
specific and direct allegation that he along with other co-
accused persons assaulted the uncle of the informant with an
intention to kill him and he died on the spot. Out of those co-
accused, four have already been convicted. In view of the
gravity of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioner no. 4.
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…