Patna High Court
Chndradeep Rai @ Chandradip RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner, being the main assailant, is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Chndradeep Rai, is in judicial custody for offences including murder under IPC sections 302, 34, 341, 323, 452, 379 and a violation of the Arms Act. He applied for bail, claiming that the informant’s side, not he, opened fire causing the death of the victim. The prosecution maintains that the petitioner was the main assailant and that a charge‑sheet has been filed with witnesses already examined. The court noted that the trial is ongoing, the petitioner has evaded arrest for about two decades, and he remains the principal accused under the prosecution’s theory. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings within nine months and ordering the Superintendent of Police to ensure witness attendance. The order was communicated to the SP’s office.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder and arms‑offence case pending trial
- Whether the petitioner can be considered the main assailant despite his claim that the informant’s side fired the weapon
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged evasion of arrest for two decades precludes bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 323, 34, 341, 379, 452
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- judicial custody
- main assailant
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76467 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2003 Thana- RAJAPAKAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Chndradeep Rai @ Chandradip Rai Son of Late Ram Lagan Rai R/o Village -
Sekhpura, P.S. - Rajapkar, Dist. - Vaishali, Bihar - 844124.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Amar Shakri, Advocate
Ms. Riya Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 06-02-2026 Heard Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner and Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, learned APP.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection
with Session Trial No. 38 of 2024, arising out of Rajapakar P.S.
Case No. 61 of 2003, registered for offences under Section
302/34/341/323/452/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act lodged on 23.07.2023 by the informant, Ravindra
Kumar Rai.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged in
the FIR that in the afternoon, when his elder brother Sachindra
Kumar Rai was in the shop while he was at home, the named
accused persons who are the neighbour stormed the shop and
forcibly withdrew Rs. 5,000/-. When his brother raised alarm, not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76467 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
only they pointed rifle towards him, when his elder brother reached
there, also started assaulting him. Specific allegation against this
petitioner is of opening fire which hit the backside of the brother
which pierced out. Ranjit Rai and Sunil Rai also alleged to have
opened fire. His brother being injured was rushed to the Hajipur
Hospital but was declared dead. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
actually the informant’s side opened fire which hit the deceased but
giving it a different colour, the FIR was lodged. In support of her
claim, learned Senior counsel took this Court to certain paragraphs
of the witnesses wherein the said facts have been recorded.
5. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the
matter is of the year 2003, the allegation against the petitioner is
that he opened fire which hit the deceased. He is the main assailant,
charge-sheet has been submitted and the matter is before an
appropriate Trial Court where some of the witnesses have already
been examined.
6. In that background, it would not be appropriate to
release him on bail, particularly when, he choose to evade arrest
for two decades.
7. Having heard the parties and perusing the records
including the learned Trial Court report, it seems that the trial is on
and the witnesses are being examined. The petitioner is the main
assailant as per the prosecution story which has been found true
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76467 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
and charge-sheet has been submitted, the defence will have all the
time to raise the points in support of their claim that it was the
informant’s side who opened fire and led to the death.
8. For the present and till an order comes in trial, the
petitioner is the main assailant as per the prosecution theory.
9. In that background, for the present, this Court do not
find it appropriate to release him on bail which is accordingly
rejected.
10. Since the petitioner is in custody for more than two
years, the Trial Court is expected to expedite the trial and conclude
it within a period of nine months.
11. Considering the fact that the matter is of the year
2003, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur is directed
to see to it that the witnesses summoned by the Trial Court
diligently appear so that the trial is taken to its logical conclusion at
an earliest.
12. Let a copy of the order be communicated to the
office of the S.P., Vaishali, Hajipur.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…