Court says bail orders lacked reasons and ignored video footage and witness statements; matter sent back for fresh hearing while interim bail continues
The Supreme Court has set aside three bail orders passed by the Patna High Court in a murder case arising out of alleged election violence during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls in Bihar, holding that the High Court failed to consider crucial evidence such as video footage of the incident and witness statements recorded during investigation.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order on October 16, 2026, in appeals filed by Nagendra Ray, the father of deceased Chandan Ram. The appeals challenged the grant of anticipatory bail to accused Kamakhya Singh alias Deepu Singh and regular bail to accused Ram Pratap Singh alias Ravi Kant Singh and Ramakant Solanki alias Ramakant Singh.
According to the prosecution, the violence stemmed from tensions during the Lok Sabha elections in May 2024. It was alleged that on May 21, 2024, a group of 40 to 50 armed persons surrounded Chandan Ram and others at Bhikhari Chowk in Saran district. The prosecution claimed that Ramakant Solanki shot Chandan Ram in the chest, while Ram Pratap Singh shot another victim, Manoj Ram, in the head. Others in the group were also allegedly fired upon. Chandan Ram later died in hospital.
An FIR was registered at Town Police Station, Chhapra Nagar, Saran, under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. A chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet were later filed, and the criminal trial is pending.
The Supreme Court noted that before approaching the High Court, the accused had unsuccessfully sought relief from the sessions court. The sessions court had refused anticipatory bail and regular bail after considering, among other things, police-obtained video footage said to show the presence of the accused at the scene. In the case of Ram Pratap Singh, the sessions court had specifically recorded that he was seen carrying a rifle.
However, the Supreme Court found that the Patna High Court, while granting relief, did not deal with this material. The Bench observed that in the cases of Kamakhya Singh and Ram Pratap Singh, the High Court completely omitted to consider the video footage, despite its mention in the sessions court’s orders. The Court further said that in all three cases, the High Court also failed to consider witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which witnesses had identified the accused after being shown the footage.
In Ramakant Solanki’s case, the Supreme Court said the High Court merely recorded the Investigating Officer’s submission about the video footage but did not undertake any independent analysis of its effect on the bail plea. The Bench stressed that merely reproducing the submissions of parties is not
Nagendra Ray v. State of Bihar, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2998693
