Nagendra Ray vs. State of Bihar & Anr. – Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2171, 4385, and 6026 of 2025) – 2026 INSC 1139 – October 16, 2026 – Dipankar Datta, J. and Sheel Nagu, J.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/2171/2171_2025_1_1_56678_Order_16-Oct-2026.pdf
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The appellant, who is the father of the deceased victim, challenged three separate orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to one accused and regular bail to two other co-accused in connection with a fatal shooting incident. [paras 2, 3]
Factual matrix
On 21st May 2024, following election-related hostility from the previous day, an armed group of forty to fifty persons surrounded the victim and his companions at Bhikhari Chowk, where gunshots were fired resulting in a murder and multiple injuries before the assailants fled. Consequently, a criminal case was registered at the local police station and subsequent chargesheets were filed under various provisions relating to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, and the Arms Act. [paras 3, 4]
Other courts verdicts
The Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory and regular bail applications of the accused after heavily relying on police video footage that established their armed presence at the crime scene. In contrast, the High Court subsequently granted bail to the accused without independently analyzing this critical electronic evidence. [paras 6, 7]
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
The appellant contended that the High Court’s bail orders were perverse because they completely ignored the police video footage placing the armed assailants at the scene and the witness statements identifying them from that recording, whereas the respondents defended the discretionary relief granted by the High Court upon hearing the respective sides and recording the investigating officer’s submissions. [paras 7, 8]
Ratio Decidendi
A judicial order granting or refusing bail must reflect an active application of mind and independent analysis of vital investigative material, including incriminating video footage and corresponding witness statements recorded during the investigation. Reasons form the indispensable backbone of judicial orders, and merely recording the submissions of counsel without objective assessment vitiates the exercise of jurisdiction. [paras 7, 8, 9]
Directions issued
The Supreme Court directed that the bail applications be restored on the file of the High Court for fresh reconsideration. It further directed that the accused shall continue to remain on interim bail, subject to previously imposed conditions, until the roster Bench of the High Court finally disposes of the applications.
Important Paragraphs
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 court praying for regular bail. Vide order dated 7th August, 2024, the sessions court denied anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Singh, and vide orders dated 7th August 2024 and 23rd 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 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.
While granting bail High court completely failed to consider statement of witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C
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 Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 who had identified the relevant accused upon being shown the video footage.
Merely recording the submission of the parties without any independent assessment of such submission is without reasons and not proper while dealing with applications
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 ‘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 Brothers to emphasize this point. It was held there as follows:
- 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….
- 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).
Matter remitted to High Court
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.”
Resources
- Judgments Cited:
- Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 – Emphasized that recording reasons is the life of law and constitutes the indispensable backbone of all judicial proceedings to reflect independent application of mind.
- Acts and Sections Involved:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 147 – Punishment for rioting
- Section 148 – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
- Section 149 – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
- Section 323 – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
- Section 307 – Attempt to murder
- Section 302 – Punishment for murder
- Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
- Section 120B – Punishment of criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act, 1959:
- Section 25(1-B)(a) – Acquisition, possession, or carrying of prohibited or unlicensed firearms or ammunition
- Section 26 – Secret contraventions
- Section 27 – Punishment for using arms, etc.
- Section 35 – Criminal responsibility of persons in occupation of premises in certain cases
- ode of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
- Section 161 – Examination of witnesses by police
- Indian Penal Code, 1860:
