Patna High Court
Rajnarayan Rai @ Rajnarayan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail as the allegations against him are based only on suspicion and lack substantive evidentiary support.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajnarayan Rai, was named in FIR No. 872 of 2025 for the alleged murder of Abhishek Kumar, with multiple sections of the BNS invoked. The informant, father of the deceased, alleged that twelve persons, including the petitioner, committed the crime, but provided no source for his knowledge. The petitioner contended innocence, noting that the deceased was last seen at a hotel, that the co-accused's confessional statement did not mention him, and that CCTV footage and call data records failed to link him to the crime. The State opposed bail, relying solely on the FIR allegation, while the court observed that the evidence against the petitioner was purely speculative. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to standard bond and surety conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. despite being named in the FIR.
- Whether the material evidence on record establishes a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 137(2), 140(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- FIR
- murder
- suspicion
- bail bond
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80602 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-872 Year-2025 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Rajnarayan Rai @ Rajnarayan Kumar Son of Late Yadolal Ray Resident of
Village- Hanuman Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran at
Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr.Santosh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Alok Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 872 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS and later on,
Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 3(5) of BNS was added.
3. The father of the deceased is informant. He lodged
FIR on 24.6.2025 stating therein that his son Abhishek Kumar
became traceless. His mobile set was switched off. Later, on
25.6.2025, the informant lodged report stating therein that twelve
named accused persons, including the petitioner, committed brutal
murder of his son and threw the dead body.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80602 of 2025(3) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The
informant himself admitted in the FIR that his son was not in his
house at the time of occurrence, rather he was in a rented room for
studies. The name of the accused persons have been given merely
on the basis of suspicion. The informant did not disclose the
source wherefrom he got the knowledge of the occurrence and
involvement of these twelve persons in the alleged occurrence.
The deceased was seen along with co-accused Ayush Kumar in a
hotel in which Ayush Kumar was working as a manager. The
statement of a staff of the hotel is there in paragraph no. 18 of the
case diary in which he has stated that he served chilli, garlic to the
deceased and after receiving that, the deceased left the hotel. The
brother of the deceased in paragraph no. 7 of the case diary though
named these 12 accused persons in his statement but he did not
disclose where from he got the information. He has submitted
further that CDR detected during the course of investigation did
not establish conversation between the deceased and the petitioner.
Co-accused Ayush Kumar has given his confessional statement in
paragraph no. 140 of the case diary in which he has furnished the
vivid description of the entire occurrence, naming five co-accused
persons, who killed the deceased but the petitioner's name has not
figured in his confessional statement. Except suspicion, there is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80602 of 2025(3) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
nothing against the petitioner in the entire case diary.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and
the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for
bail by submitting that the petitioner is named in the FIR with
specific allegation that he along with other co-accused persons
brutally assaulted the deceased.
6. Petitioner was not seen in the CCTV camera. Even in
the confessional statement of co-accused, his name has not
figured. Except suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioner.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, let the petitioner, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 872 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)
Cr.P.C.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…