Patna High Court
PRIYANSHU RAI @ PRIYANSHU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Priyanshu Rai sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging he and several others indiscriminately fired at a motorcycle, resulting in the death of Kamlesh Rai, the husband of the informant. The informant, who is also an agnate of the petitioner, claimed the petitioner initiated the firing, while the petitioner argued the informant is not an eye‑witness and the allegations are false, citing a lack of injury to other riders and the non‑recording of a material witness statement. The State opposed bail, contending the petitioner had motive, was also an accused in a related case involving the death of the informant’s son, and that the FIR shows a prima facie case. The court examined the credibility of the informant, the seriousness of the offences (Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2) of the BNS Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act), and prior anticipatory bail granted to co‑accused, and concluded that bail could not be extended. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438 should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations and evidence.
- Whether the informant's testimony is credible enough to constitute a prima facie case.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 103(1), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- CrPC Section 438
- arms act
- Section 27 Arms Act
- credibility of witness
- property dispute
- conspiracy
- murder
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77584 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2024 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Priyanshu Rai @ Priyanshu Kumar S/o- Deepak Ray @ Deepak Rai R/v-
Perhap Ps- Sahar Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Shankar Roy
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
Mr. Saumya, Adv
Mr. Suryajit Prakash
Mr. Avinash Raj
Mr. Shantam Shivam
Ms. Alankrita Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sahar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2024, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(2),
191(3) and 61(2) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that 09.09.2024 at about 8.00 A.M. her husband Kamlesh Rai
along with her brother-in-law (Devar) Manoranjan were going
to Civil Court, Ara, on a motorcycle and her husband was sitting
as a pillion and the informant was also coming from behind and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77584 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/5
when they reached near the house of Tuntun Rai, accused
Priyanshu started indiscriminate firing and thereafter Nandu,
Chhotak, Murari and Deepak also started firing from their
country-made pistol, it is next alleged that Sumant and
Parmatma, who are lodged in jail, had hatched the conspiracy to
eliminate her husband, it is further alleged that Pawan, Suraj,
Puja, Kiran, Kanti, Tuntun, Jeetendra and Bholu were involved
in hatching conspiracy to kill her husband and Bholu @
Shubham Rai also fired from his country-made pistol on her
husband and fled on an Apache motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant, who is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is
next submitted that it is specifically alleged that her husband
along with his brother Manoranjan were going to civil court and
her husband was sitting as a pillion when this petitioner started
indiscriminate firing and thereafter other accused also fired
leading to death of her husband, but then it is submitted that had
an indiscriminate firing been resorted to by the accused persons
in that event Manoranjan, who was driving the motorcycle,
would also have sustained injury, but then that is not the case. It
is also submitted that statement of Manoranjan was not recorded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77584 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/5
by the police during the course of investigation. It is next
submitted that petitioner and the informant are agnates and are
having dispute relating to property, as such the petitioner has
been implicated with a view to coerce him and his family into
submission. It is further submitted that though allegation is of
indiscriminate firing, but then only three injuries were found on
the body of the deceased, i.e., Kamlesh. It is reiterated and
submitted that informant does not appear to be a credible eye-
witness and it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why
the statement of Manoranjan was not recorded by the police
during the course of investigation, when he was a material
witness.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that this petitioner along with
Deepak and Sonu are alleged to have fired at Aditya, son of the
informant, and in the said occurrence, the accused persons also
fired at Kamlesh, the deceased in the present case, for which
Sahar PS Case No. 78 of 2024 came to be registered, but then
Kamlesh survived on account of treatment meted out, but his
son, Aditya, died during the course of treatment and it was in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77584 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
4/5
connection with Sahar PS Case No. 78 of 2024 that Kamlesh
along with his brother, Manoranjan, were going to civil court
Ara for deposing as a witness, when the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is also submitted that no doubt allegation
against rest of the accused persons of firing is general and
omnibus in nature, but then from perusal of the allegations as
alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that this petitioner is
alleged to have started indiscriminate firing causing fire-arm
injury to Kamlesh. It is further submitted that since petitioner is
also an accused in Sahar PS Case No. 78 of 2024, which is with
respect to killing of Aditya, son of Kamlesh and present
informant, as such petitioner had the motive also to commit the
occurrence of killing of Kamlesh, who was a witness in Sahar
PS Case No. 78 of 2024 being informant of the case.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that Lal Ray @ Murari Ray had approached
this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 65511
of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
8.10.2025, further Deepak Rai had approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 21942 of 2025
and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 15.5.2025
passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench, on which learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77584 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
5/5
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that case
of Lal Ray and Deepak is not akin to the case of petitioner as
petitioner in the instant FIR is also alleged to have started
indiscriminate firing which led to death of the husband of the
informant, it is also submitted that informant is the wife of the
deceased and it does not appear probable that being wife the
informant would have falsely alleged against the petitioner
knowing that he did not start indiscriminate firing leading to the
death of her husband.
7. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not
inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…