“Merely recording the submissions of the parties” is not enough: the Supreme Court has set aside three Patna High Court bail orders in a murder case in which video footage of the incident and the statements identifying the accused went unconsidered.
New Delhi: Three Patna High Court bail orders in a 2024 murder case from Saran district, Bihar, have been set aside by the Supreme Court, which found that the High Court did not consider the video footage of the incident or the statements of witnesses who identified the accused from it. All three applications go back to the High Court for fresh decision [Nagendra Ray v. State of Bihar and Another].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu allowed three appeals filed by Nagendra Ray, the father of the deceased, Chandan Ram. The order, authored by Justice Datta, was passed on October 16, 2026. The allegations in the case are untested, the accused are presumed innocent, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
A bail order without reasons of its own
On the orders granting relief to Kamakhya Singh and Ram Pratap Singh, the Court found that the High Court had completely omitted to consider the video footage, even though the sessions court’s orders referred to it. In all three orders, it said, the High Court also failed to consider the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who had identified the relevant accused after being shown the footage.
Ramakant Solanki’s position was slightly different. The High Court had recorded the Investigating Officer’s submission about the footage, but the Supreme Court held that it gave no independent analysis of whether the footage affected his prayer for bail. The Bench said:
“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.”
The prosecution’s account of May 21, 2024
According to the prosecution, on May 20, 2024, during the Lok Sabha elections, some persons misbehaved with, abused and attempted to attack supporters of an RJD candidate, after which an FIR was registered. It is alleged that on May 21, 2024, at about 7 am, a group of 40 to 50 persons armed with deadly weapons, including Kamakhya Singh, Ram Pratap Singh and Ramakant Solanki, surrounded the appellant’s son and others at Bhikhari Chowk. The prosecution alleges that Solanki shot the appellant’s son in the chest and that Ram Pratap Singh shot another man in the head, while two others were also fired at. The appellant’s son was declared dead at the hospital.
FIR No. 346/2024 was registered at Town Police Station, Chhapra Nagar, Saran, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. A chargesheet was filed on August 17, 2024 and a supplementary chargesheet on April 10, 2025, and the trial is pending.
From the sessions court to the High Court
The sessions court refused anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Singh and regular bail to Ram Pratap Singh on August 7, 2024, and regular bail to Ramakant Solanki on September 23, 2024. One of the critical grounds, the Supreme Court noted, was video footage of the incident obtained by the police, which showed the presence of the accused at the spot. In Ram Pratap Singh’s case the sessions court recorded that he was seen holding a rifle.
The High Court later granted anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Singh on October 23, 2024, regular bail to Ram Pratap Singh on December 20, 2024 and regular bail to Ramakant Solanki on January 10, 2025. The father of the deceased challenged all three orders before the Supreme Court.
The duty to give reasons
To underline that duty, the Bench referred to its earlier decision in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785], which says that a court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting or accepting the claim of a party, however concise, and that the requirement applies with greater rigour to judicial proceedings. Applying that principle, the Court held that the omission to consider crucial material justified a fresh look at each application.
Back to the roster Bench
The appeals were allowed and the three High Court orders were set aside, with CRM No. 66294/2024, CRM No. 68542/2024 and CRM No. 76397/2024 revived and restored to the file of the High Court. The Court clarified that the three accused will continue on interim bail, on the terms fixed by the High Court, until the roster Bench of the High Court finally decides the applications after hearing the accused, the complainant and the police. The High Court may, subject to its convenience, list the applications together.
The Court added that its observations are not findings on the merits and that all contentions on merits are kept open.
What the order leaves open
A bail order is a reasoned judicial decision and not a formality. Where the prosecution or the sessions court has relied on specific material such as video footage and identification statements, a higher court granting bail is expected to show that it looked at that material and to say why it does or does not matter.
The relief given is limited. The accused remain on interim bail and the question of bail has been left open for the Patna High Court to decide afresh, so the order is a direction on process and carries no finding on guilt.
Case Title: Nagendra Ray v. State of Bihar and Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2171, 4385 and 6026 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 16, 2026