High Court granted bail without looking at the video, so Supreme Court sends Chhapra poll murder bail pleas back
Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held bail orders that ignore video footage and witness identifications cannot stand, and remitted three bail pleas while keeping the accused on interim bail.
On the morning after a Lok Sabha polling-day clash in Chhapra, Bihar, a crowd of 40 to 50 armed men surrounded a group of RJD supporters at Bhikhari Chowk and opened fire. One young man was shot in the chest and died. Three of the accused later obtained bail or anticipatory bail from the High Court. Police had video footage placing them at the scene, and the sessions court had relied on it to refuse them bail. The High Court's orders did not deal with it. On 16 October 2026 the Supreme Court set aside all three orders on an appeal by the dead man's father, Nagendra Ray, and sent the bail pleas back for fresh consideration. Justice Dipankar Datta wrote the order for a bench with Justice Sheel Nagu. The order is marked non-reportable.
The shooting
The prosecution says that on 20 May 2024, polling day, some people abused and tried to attack supporters of an RJD candidate, and an FIR was registered. The next morning, at about 7 a.m., a large armed group, including Kamakhya Singh alias Deepu Singh, Ram Pratap Singh alias Ravi Kant Singh and Ramakant Solanki alias Ramakant Singh, surrounded the appellant's son and others. Ramakant Solanki is alleged to have shot the appellant's son in the chest, and Ram Pratap Singh to have shot Manoj Ram in the head. Two others in the group, Deepak Kumar and Guddu Kumar, were shot by other assailants. The attackers fled, firing as they went. The appellant's son was declared dead in hospital.
FIR No. 346/2024 was registered at Town Police Station, Chhapra Nagar, District Saran, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. A chargesheet was filed on 17 August 2024 and a supplementary chargesheet on 10 April 2025. The trial is pending.
Sessions court refused, High Court granted
The sessions court refused anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Singh and regular bail to Ram Pratap Singh on 7 August 2024, and regular bail to Ramakant Solanki on 23 September 2024. A key reason was the police video of the incident, which showed the accused at the scene. In Ram Pratap Singh's case, the sessions court recorded that he could be seen holding a rifle.
The High Court then granted anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Singh on 23 October 2024, regular bail to Ram Pratap Singh on 20 December 2024, and regular bail to Ramakant Solanki on 10 January 2025.
What the Supreme Court found missing
For Kamakhya Singh and Ram Pratap Singh, the High Court's orders did not consider the video at all, even though the sessions court orders referred to it. None of the three orders considered the statements, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of witnesses who identified the accused after being shown the footage.
For Ramakant Solanki, the High Court did note the investigating officer's submission about the video, but it did not say whether the footage counted against his bail. The Supreme Court held that simply recording what the parties argued, without assessing it, is not the right way to decide a bail application. An order must refer to the material, however briefly, to show that the court applied its mind.
The Court relied on Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers (2010), which held that the duty to give reasons applies with greater rigour to judicial proceedings. An order must show what weighed with the court in granting or refusing relief, at admission or after a full hearing, however concise the reasons. The bench called reasons the backbone of all judicial decisions.
Order
The appeals were allowed and the three bail orders were set aside. The applications, CRM No. 66294/2024, CRM No. 68542 of 2024 and CRM No. 76397 of 2024, are restored to the High Court. The three accused remain on interim bail on the conditions the High Court imposed until the roster bench decides the applications after hearing the accused, the complainant and the police. The High Court may hear them together. The Supreme Court made no findings on the merits and left all contentions open.