Nagendra Ray vs The State Of Bihar
- Court
- Supreme Court
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1139
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 2171 OF 2025]
NAGENDRA RAY …APPELLANT
vs.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 4385 OF 2025]
NAGENDRA RAY …APPELLANT
vs.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 6026 OF 2025]
NAGENDRA RAY …APPELLANT
vs.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
1
2. These appeals are at the instance of the father of the deceased,
Chandan Ram. Appellant challenges the grant, by the Patna High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MANIK KUMAR
Date: 2026.10.16
17:23:53 IST
Reason:
1
appellant
1
2
Court , of (i) anticipatory bail to an accused, Kamakhya Singh @
rd
Deepu Singh, vide its order dated 23 October, 2024 in CRM No.
66294/2024; (ii) regular bail to an accused, Ram Pratap Singh @ Ravi
th
Kant Singh vide its order dated 20 December, 2024 in CRM No.
68542 of 2024 and (iii) regular bail to an accused, Ramakant Solanki
th
@ Ramakant Singh vide its order dated 10 January, 2025 in CRM
No.76397 of 2024. All such orders granting bail shall hereafter be
referred to as the impugned orders.
th
3. The prosecution alleges that on 20 May, 2024, during the Lok Sabha
elections, some persons misbehaved, abused and attempted to attack
supporters of an RJD candidate without any provocation, pursuant to
st
which an FIR was registered. Out of resentment, on 21 May, 2024,
at approximately 7:00 AM, a large group of around 40-50 individuals
(including accused Kamakhya Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and
Ramakant Solanki) armed with deadly weapons surrounded the
appellant’s son and others at Bhikhari Chowk. Ramakant Solanki shot
the appellant’s son in the chest and Ram Pratap Singh shot Manoj
Ram in the head. Deepak Kumar and Guddu Kumar, who were two
others in the appellant’s son’s group, were also shot at by other
assailants. Hearing the gunshots and the screams, the appellant
along with others rushed to the spot while the accused fled the scene,
firing indiscriminately as they escaped. Appellant’s son was declared
dead at the hospital, with the others required medical attention.
2
High Court
2
st
4. Pursuant thereto, FIR No.346/2024 dated 21 May, 2024 was
registered at Town Police Station, Chhapra Nagar, District Saran under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal
3 4
Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act,1959 against Kamakhya
Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and Ramakant Solanki along with other co-
5
accused. Chargesheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
307, 302 and 120B of the IPC, and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and
35 of the Arms Act against Kamakhya Singh, Ram Pratap Singh,
Ramakant Solanki and other co-accused. A supplementary
6
chargesheet against other co-accused persons has also been filed,
and the trial against the accused herein is presently pending.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
have perused the impugned orders and the records before us.
6. At the outset, we note that Kamakhya Singh had initially approached
the sessions court praying for anticipatory bail, while Ram Pratap
Singh and Ramakant Solanki separately approached the sessions
th
court praying for regular bail. Vide order dated 7 August, 2024, the
sessions court denied anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Singh, and vide
th rd
orders dated 7 August 2024 and 23 September 2024, the sessions
court denied regular bail to Ram Pratap Singh and Ramakant Solanki,
respectively. One of the critical grounds considered by the sessions
3
IPC
4
Arms Act
5 th
No.510 of 2024 dated 17 August, 2024
6 th
No. 156 of 2025 dated 10 April, 2025
3
court in denying anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Singh and in denying
bail to Ram Pratap Singh and Ramakant Solanki was a video footage
of the incident obtained by the police which showed presence of the
accused at the site of the incident. In Ram Pratap Singh’s case, the
sessions court specifically recorded that he was seen holding a rifle
in his hand.
7. On perusal of the impugned orders granting relief to Kamakhya Singh
and Ram Pratap Singh, it appears that the High Court completely
omitted and failed to consider the aforementioned video footage,
though reference to such video footage is found in the sessions
court’s orders. It also appears that the High Court, in all the impugned
orders, failed to consider the statements of the witnesses under
7
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 who had
identified the relevant accused upon being shown the video footage.
8. Insofar as Ramakant Solanki is concerned, even though the High
Court recorded the submission of the Investigating Officer in respect
of the video footage, it has failed to provide its own independent
analysis or reasons as to whether this video footage adversely
impacts Ramakant Solanki’s prayer for bail. Merely recording the
submissions of the parties without any independent assessment of
such submissions is not a proper approach while dealing with
applications for bail. Reference to material, however concise they may
be, ought to be made to show application of mind. Importantly, it is
7
Cr. PC
4
‘the reasons’ which form the backbone of all judicial decisions. We
may briefly refer to a decision of this Court in Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and
8
Brothers to emphasize this point. It was held there as follows:
19. In the cases where the courts have not recorded reasons in the
judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the
court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in the absence of
proper discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is applicable
with greater rigour to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the court
must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the
relief claimed by the applicant….
…
24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once
ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such
is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons
furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter
of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of
reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of
uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to
the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our
view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for
rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e.
at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they
may be.
(emphasis ours)
9. Based on the High Court’s non-consideration of the video footage of
the incident obtained by the police in respect of the accused herein,
as well as its non-consideration of the statements of the witnesses
under Section 161 Cr. PC who had identified the relevant accused
upon being shown the video footage, we deem it appropriate to remit
the matters to the High Court for fresh reconsideration of the
respective prayers of the accused for anticipatory bail/bail.
8
(2010) 4 SCC 785
5
10. In view of the above, the appeals stand allowed and the impugned
orders are set aside. Consequently, CRM No. 66294/2024, CRM No.
68542 of 2024 and CRM No.76397 of 2024 shall stand revived and
restored on the file of the High Court.
11. Though we have set aside the impugned orders, we clarify that the
accused Kamakhya Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and Ramakant Solanki
shall continue to remain on interim bail, subject to such terms and
conditions as were imposed by the High Court, till such time the roster
Bench of the High Court finally disposes of the aforementioned
applications for anticipatory bail/bail upon hearing the accused, the
complainant and the police. Subject to its convenience, the High
Court may list the said applications for being heard together.
12. We clarify that the observations made in this order shall not be
treated as findings on the merits of the case. All
contentions/objections on merits are kept open.
………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
..……….……………………J.
(SHEEL NAGU)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 16, 2026.
6