Patna High Court
Deepak Rai @ Deepak Kumar @ Indrajeet RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 and the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Rai, was arrested on 19 June 2025 in connection with a murder‑robbery case (PS‑866/2024) and charged under Sections 309(6), 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case is based on the confessional statements of a co‑accused, Sanjeev Kumar, and a later statement by the petitioner himself, but no other material evidence links him to the crime. The petitioner contends that he is innocent, was not named in the FIR, and that the evidence is insufficient; he also points out that he is already on bail in five other cases. The State opposes bail, highlighting seven prior criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the circumstances, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding court attendance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify a denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 309(6), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- prior criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75966 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-866 Year-2024 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Deepak Rai @ Deepak Kumar @ Indrajeet Rai S/o Jainath Rai @ Jainath Ray
Resident of - Ramjee Chak, Sarkari school Gali, P.S - Digha, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rahul Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
19.06.2025 in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 866 of 2024,
F.I.R. dated 20.11.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 309(6), 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
alleged that on 18.11.2024, his son has been shot dead by the
unknown miscreants and looted his belongings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75966 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
name transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused person, namely, Sanjeev Kumar and thereafter
confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded in which
he has stated that he was involved in the present crime in
question but he has stated that one Nitesh Kumar has fired upon
the deceased and during investigation, no other cogent material
has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of
the petitioner in the present occurrence. He further submits that
the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet and the
petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner carries seven criminal antecedents
other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of
paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail
in five cases.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
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 A.C.J.M-
IX-Patna in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 866 of 2024,
subject to the following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75966 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
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 cancelled 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)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…