Allowed¶24

Sikandra Rai v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Apr 2026CR. MISC./50060/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: regular bail; murder; B.N.S.S. Sections 103, 238(a), 61(2)(a); suspicion-based implication; no eye witness; confessional statement before police; no recovery of incriminating article; parity with co-accused Shail Devi (Cr. Misc No. 64728 of 2025, bail order dated 01.11.2025); in custody since 22.03.2025; charge sheet filed; no criminal antecedent; Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025; East Champaran; Sadar Hospital Motihari; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50060 of 2025; Praveen Kumar, J.; decision date 27-04-2026; bail bond Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on regular bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned in Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025. ¶24

Sikandra Rai Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody in Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103, 238(a), 61(2) (a) of the B.N.S.S. (as printed), should be granted regular bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned in Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The bail application stands allowed.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail — Patna High Court, Praveen Kumar, J. — Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50060 of 2025, decided 27-04-2026 — Applicant sought regular bail in Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025, District East Champaran, for offences punishable under Sections 103, 238(a), 61(2) (a) of the B.N.S.S. (as printed in the judgment) — Prosecution allegation: informant's son Sanjiv Kumar, who reportedly worked as a driver and was said to have illicit relations with the petitioner's wife, was found dead on 22.03.2025; petitioner, his wife and others alleged to have committed the murder — Counsel for petitioner: implication based on mere suspicion; no eye-witness; confessional statement before police led to recovery of no incriminating article; petitioner in custody since 22.03.2025; charge sheet filed; no criminal antecedent; no allegation of tampering; co-accused wife Shail Devi already granted bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 01.11.2025 in Cr. Misc No. 64728 of 2025 — APP opposed the prayer — Held: petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned; application stands allowed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50060 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East

¶3

Champaran

¶4

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

¶5

Sikandra Rai S/o Late Ramakant Rai R/o Village- Basantpur, Pakari, P.S.Riga, District- Sitamarhi

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 50060 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, App ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 27-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

A.P.P for the State.

¶14

2 . The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 238(a), 61(2) (a) of the of the B.N.S.S.

¶15

3 . As per the prosecution case, son of the informant used to work as a driver at the house of one Ram Babu Singh. On 22.03.2025, at about 10:30 AM, the informant got an information through Ram Babu Singh that his son has died and the dead body has been sent to Sadar Hospital, Motihari for autopsy. On such information, the informant went to Sadar Hospital and saw the dead body of his son after post mortem examination. The informant expressed suspicion on the basis of

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50060 of 2025(5) dt.27-04-2026 2/3

¶17

information given by Ram Babu Singh and others that the deceased son of the informant had illicit relations with wife of Sikandra Rai (petitioner) since several years, as a result of which Sikandra Rai (petitioner), his wife and others persons have committed the murder of his son Sanjiv Kumar.

¶18

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion based upon a concocted story, the petitioner’s name has surfaced in this case. Petitioner was thereafter arrested on the basis of such suspicion and a confessional statement of this petitioner was recorded by the police while in police custody. It has further been submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence of murder and except suspicion, there are no other circumstances to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence, confessional statement before police has led to recovery of no incriminating article. Moreover, it has been submitted that co-accused, Shail Devi, wife of the petitioner, with whom there is an allegation, that the deceased was having illicit relation, has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the Court vide order dated 01.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc No. 64728 of 2025. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 22.03.2025, charge sheet has been

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50060 of 2025(5) dt.27-04-2026 3/3

¶20

filed and there is no allegation of tampering.

¶21

5 . Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

¶22

the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶23

6 . Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, let the petitioner above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025.

¶24

7. The application stands allowed.

¶25

(Praveen Kumar, J)

¶26

niku/-

Sikandra Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandra Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kishan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Himanshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pintu Chaudhary @ Pintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mukul Yadav @ Mukul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar