Patna High Court
Pankaj Rai @ Pankaj Ray @ Pankaj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the delay in the FIR and the absence of substantive evidentiary material warranted the grant of bail.
Summary
Petitioners Pankaj Rai and Binay Kumar were charged under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S. for allegedly killing two boys and disposing of their bodies in the Ganga. The FIR was filed four days after the alleged incident and was only presented to the court on 14‑08‑2024, despite being registered on 07‑08‑2024. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on a confessional statement and CCTV footage that, according to the petitioners, lacked proper identification and had no evidentiary value. No bodies have been recovered and the petitioners have been in custody since 24‑12‑2024 without substantive progress. The State opposed bail, citing material under Section 103 and other provisions. The court, noting the FIR delay, the weak evidentiary basis, and the absence of recovered bodies, granted bail to each petitioner on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and specific conditions regarding court attendance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S. given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of substantive evidence.
- Whether a confessional statement and CCTV footage, without proper identification, constitute sufficient material to justify continued detention.
- Whether the non‑recovery of the victims' bodies and the prolonged pre‑trial custody affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 137(2)
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- confessional statement
- CCTV identification
- murder
- Section 137(2)
- Section 103
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73061 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-519 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Pankaj Rai @ Pankaj Ray @ Pankaj Kumar S/o- Ashok Ray Resident of
Ramji chak, Yadav Gali, PS- Digha, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 56716 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-519 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar S/o Satya Narayan Ray @ Satya Narayan Rai
Resident of Ramji Chak, Yadav Gali, P.S - Digha, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 73061 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 56716 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 11-03-2026 As both these bail applications arise out of the same
police station case number, hence they are being heard together
and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
and learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 137(2) of the B.N.S.
4. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73061 of 2025(6) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
the petitioners is that they have killed two boys and thrown their
bodies in river Ganga.
5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
submits that the First Information Report was lodged initially
against unknown under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S. and the
name of the petitioners transpired subsequently during the
course of investigation on the basis of statement of a spy which
was made towards identification of petitioner in CCTV footage
and the confessional statement of the petitioners, which has no
evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It has further been
submitted that the First Information Report was also lodged
after a delay of four days for which no explanation has been
tendered and the F.I.R. was also received in Court as late as on
14.08.2024 although the same was registered on 07.08.2024
and till date neither the dead body has been recovered nor the
confessional statement has led to recovery of any other
incriminating article. The petitioners have also not been put on
T.I. parade although the petitioners were in custody in different
case and have been remanded in the present case on 24.12.2024
and since then, they are languishing in custody with no
substantial progress in the case.
6. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of
bail on the ground that there is material against the petitioners
during the course of investigation and charge-sheet has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73061 of 2025(6) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
submitted under Section 103 and other provisions of the B.N.S.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the factum of delay in lodging
the First Information Report, coupled with the fact that the only
material available against the petitioners is the confessional
statement having no evidentiary value and the CCTV footage
which does not disclose any proper identification, let the above
named petitioners, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
A.C.J.M., IX, Patna/concerned Court below in connection with
Digha P.S. Case No. 519 of 2024 subject to condition that:-
(i) One of the bailors will be their own blood relative,
preferably, father, mother, brother, sister.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in
court on each and every date during trial and in the
event of failure on two consecutive dates without
sufficient reasons, their bail bonds shall be liable to be
cancelled by the learned court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…