Patna High Court
Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Rajeev Kumar and Nandkishor Rai, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a murder case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that the informant's son was assaulted and killed by the accused, including the petitioners, on 30-31 March 2025. The petitioners contended they were innocent, claiming the allegations were politically motivated and that the informant was not an eye‑witness. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific and serious nature of the accusations. The Court, after considering the gravity of the offence and the direct accusations, rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioners remain liable to arrest.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners accused of murder under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- criminal procedure
- Section 103
- Section 3
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84361 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Son of Ram Pratap Rai Resident of village -
Nimahi, P.S.- Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi.
2. Nandkishor Rai Son of Late Bhulur Rai @ Late Sindeshwar Rai Resident of
village - Sundarpur, Ward No.- 4, P.S.- Bhittha, Sursand, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and
3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on
30.03.2025 at about 6:30 PM, son of informant went missing.
On 31.03.2025 at about 10 PM, co-accused Anil Rai informed
the informant on mobile phone that his son has been assaulted
by all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these
petitioners, for entering into house of co-accused Jagdish Rai. In
the morning, when informant went to Community Health
Centre, Sursand, he found the dead body of his son. Informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84361 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
alleges that all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including
these petitioners, committed murder of his son by assaulting
him.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness of
the occurrence and only because of village politics, petitioners
have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners claim clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other
accused persons, assaulted son of informant due to which he
died.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…