Dismissed¶23

Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Aug 2025CR. MISC./29268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected — Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.29268 of 2025, decided 13-08-2025 by Rudra Prakash Mishra, J. Petitioner Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai; Mehsi P.S. Case No. 137 of 2024, District-East Champaran; offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 309(6) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 Arms Act; charge-sheet submitted; petitioner unnamed in FIR, named via confessional statement of co-accused Upendra Kumar; in custody since 17.02.2025; two criminal antecedents (on bail); co-accused's bail rejected 05.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 26830 of 2025; prayer for bail rejected, trial directed to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶22

Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai, should be granted bail in connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 137 of 2024.

¶15

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage, with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the Trial and conclude the same expeditiously.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29268 of 2025, decided 13-08-2025: Regular bail sought by Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai in Mehsi P.S. Case No. 137 of 2024 (District-East Champaran), instituted for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Counsel for the petitioner contended that he was innocent and falsely implicated, unnamed in the FIR, his name having transpired in investigation through a police-recorded confessional statement of co-accused Upendra Kumar; that even per that confession he was not the assailant; that there was no eye-witness; that no specific allegation, only general and omnibus allegations, were attributed to him; that the charge-sheet had been filed; and that he was in custody since 17.02.2025 with two criminal antecedents in which he was on bail. The learned APP opposed bail, stating the FIR was against unknown persons and that the co-accused's confessional statement in paragraph 14 of the case diary implicated the petitioner; regular bail of a co-accused had been rejected by a Co-Ordinate Bench vide order dated 05.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 26830 of 2025. Considering the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, the Court declined bail, rejected the prayer at this stage, and directed the court below to expedite and conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29268 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2024 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai S/o Late Ram Naresh Rai R/o vill - Muzza Bangra, P.s.- Deoriya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv. Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv. M/s Kajal, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶9

ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 13-08-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

¶12

for the State.

¶13

Perused the case diary.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mehsi

¶15

P.S. Case No. 137 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶16

The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons were looting oil from a

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29268 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 2/3

¶18

truck near a line hotel and when one person protested, they shot and killed that person.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has transpired in this case in course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused recorded before the police which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Even as per confessional statement of the co-accused Upendra Kumar, the petitioner is not the assailant of the deceased in any manner. There is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. Even the Informant is not the eyewitness and the fardbeyan was lodged after the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that no specific allegation has been attributed against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2025 and has got two criminal antecedents in which he is on bail.

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29268 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 3/3

¶21

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the FIR is registered against unknown but, in paragraph no. 14 of the case diary which is confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Upendra Kumar where he confessed his guilt and stated about the involvement of the petitioner and other co-accused persons in this case. It is further submitted that regular bail of co-accused has been rejected by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26830 of 2025. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the Trial and conclude the same expeditiously.

¶24

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶25

rishi/-

¶26

U T

Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Rai @ Ravan Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chimpu Kumar @ Rajan Kumar @ Rajan Choudhary @ Chintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pooja Devi @ Puja Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Thakur @ Manoj Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Chourasiya @ Aman Dip Kumar @ Aman Deep Kumar @ Aman Modi Vs The State of Bihar

Ashutosh Raj Vs The State of Bihar