Shivlochan Rai @ Lusi Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32517 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2022 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Shivlochan Rai @ Lusi Rai Son of Ram Sharan Rai Resident of Village -Banhara P S -Teghra District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Naresh Dixit, Adv.
Ms. Shruti, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP For the Informant Mr. Eashita Raj, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Shruti and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 396 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have committed murder of the son of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, at the outset, that for an occurrence which took place on 02.09.2022, the FIR was lodged on 03.09.2022 and the same was received in the Court of the C.J.M. on 05.09.2022 which is indicative of the fact that delay has been caused in the receipt of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32517 of 2025(9) dt.17-02-2026 2/3 the FIR in the court which speaks volumes about the false implication of the petitioner as there is all possibility of being antedated. It is further submitted that the allegation of firing the first shot is at Sushil Rai and thereafter the petitioner is also supposed to have fired but as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and there have been substantial diversion in the statement of the informant and other witnesses with regard to the manner of occurrence from the First Information Report to their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2023 and the case has only been committed to the court of Sessions.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that there is specific and direct allegation of firing at the petitioner and the postmortem report also corroborates the firearm injury received by the deceased. The informant and one other witness has also got injured in the occurrence whose statement has also been recorded in the case diary and the same is also supportive of the allegations. Further, the petitioner has several criminal antecedents and most of them are of serious offences.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32517 of 2025(9) dt.17-02-2026 3/3 circumstances and also considering the fact that there is direct allegation of firing on the petitioner and the petitioner also has a long history of criminal cases against him, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection Teghra P.S. Case No. 253 of 2022.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) devendra/- U T