Patna High Court
Subodh RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Subodh Rai, was arrested on 14 May 2023 in connection with a murder case (Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 IPC) concerning the death of Sudhir Rai. The prosecution alleges that Subodh, along with Sunil Rai and others, conspired to kill Sudhir and concealed the body. The petitioner claims a clean antecedent and argues that the trial has progressed minimally, with only one of ten charge‑sheet witnesses examined. The trial court’s report indicated that the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined, suggesting a prolonged trial. Considering the delay, the petitioner’s clean record, and the lack of substantive progress, the High Court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions to ensure his cooperation and prevent tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder, conspiracy and common intention given the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and lack of trial progress justify granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and cooperation conditions are sufficient safeguards for the trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- IPC
- trial delay
- clean antecedent
- pre‑trial detention
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72088 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2023 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Subodh Rai S/O Hem Narayan Rai Resident of Village- Fatehpur Pakari,
Piroi, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
14.05.2023 in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 140 of
2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B)
and 34 of the IPC.
3. That the prosecution case, in brief, is that one
Rajbanshi Devi on 09.05.2023 at 10.00 AM, her youngest son
namely Sudhir Rai along with her elder son Sunil Rai and one
Subodh Rai left home to the house of her daughter Indu Devi.
They all reached there at 11 Clock from there, at 2 'O' Clock,
they all went to village Bhadwas for negotiation of marriage of
her niece. It is further alleged that at 02.30 P.M., all the three left
village Bhadwas to return back on a motorcycle but only her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72088 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
eldest son Sunil and Subodh returned home on the motorcycle,
when they were asked about Sudhir, both of them did not say
anything. She tried to contact Sudhir over his mobile but the
mobile was switched off. It is further alleged that Baby Kumari
wife of Sunil { her son) used to threaten her in course of quarrel
that they would get Sudhir killed. Soon after the marriage, Baby
Kumari started living separately with her husband and she
(Informant) was residing with Sudhir and as such they were
annoyed. It is also alleged that on 10.05.2023, at 2 PM she knew
about the death of her son (Sudhir) through the mobile of the
people. He was killed at Jagdishpur and the dead body was kept
at Sadar Hospital. They reached at the Hospital, identified and
thereafter, funeral was done. She believed that her son Sunil
Rai, daughter in law Baby Kumari and Subodh Rai have
conspired and killed her son Sudhir Rai by cutting his throat
with sharp cut weapon and with the help of other unknown
persons who tried to conceal the dead body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail was rejected
vide order dated 31.07.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 17624 of 2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72088 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner
is in custody 14.05.2023 and the trial has not been progressed.
5. Vide order dated 17.02.2026, report was called for
with regard to the stage of the trial. The report dated 27.02.2026
of the learned trial court reveals that out of ten charge-sheet
witnesses, only one witness has been examined and case is
pending for the rest nine prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that in view of the report of the
learned trial court the trial will not be concluded in the near
future and the petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2023 having
clean antecedent.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
as well as the report of the trial court and also the fact that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 14.05.2023, let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Vaishali at Hajipur in
connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 140 of 2023, subject to
the following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72088 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…