Patna High Court
Tej Narayan Rai @ Tejo RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that no fresh ground existed and the seriousness of the offences warranted the continuation of custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Tej Narayan Rai, was charged under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for kidnapping, raping a victim and executing a sale deed in her favour. He applied for bail for the first time, which was rejected on 15.05.2025. On 05.05.2026 he made a second bail application, contending a delay in lodging the FIR and not denying the sale deed. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offences. The Court found no fresh ground for bail, noted the seriousness of the allegations, and upheld its earlier order, dismissing the bail application without prejudice to the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of kidnapping, rape and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR constitutes a sufficient ground for granting bail.
- Whether the execution of a sale deed by the accused affects the bail consideration.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 137(2), 140(3), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- sale deed
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83267 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Tej Narayan Rai @ Tejo Rai S/o- Late Basudeo Rai Village- Mktiyarpur
Salkhanni PS- Dalsingsarai Distt-Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S.
Case No. 335 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections
137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 30813 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 335 of
2024 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The petitioner is involved in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83267 of 2025(5) dt.05-05-2026
2/2
kidnapping of the victim. The victim was kept in a
room and thereafter she was raped also.
Thereafter, the accused persons got a sale deed
executed from the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that there is delay in lodging the
FIR. He does not deny the execution of sale deed.
The allegations are supported by the victim in her
statement made under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The
petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State
and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the nature of allegation
levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application stands
dismissed.”
4. Considering the gravity of the offence and also the
fact that no fresh ground for grant of bail is made out, I am not
inclined to review my earlier order.
5. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…