Patna High Court
Mohit Kumar Shah @ Mohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted at this stage due to the seriousness of the allegation and the trial being near completion.
Summary
The appellant, Mohit Kumar Shah, appealed against the Special Judge's order rejecting his bail application in a case involving alleged firing at the informant's son. The charges include offences under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Sections 27, 25(1‑b)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The appellant claimed false implication and highlighted that the trial was near its end with most witnesses already examined and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the grave nature of the allegation of firing in the mouth of the victim. The High Court, noting the seriousness of the charge and the trial being at its fag end, refused bail, allowing the appellant to renew the prayer after three months if the trial remains pending, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant at the stage of trial given the serious allegation of firing in the mouth of the victim.
- Whether the appellant's claim of false implication and lack of criminal antecedent warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109, 3(5)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- trial expeditious
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3439 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-617 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mohit Kumar Shah @ Mohit Kumar S/O Late Manoj Sah R/O Village-
Himmat Patti, Ward No. 1, P.S.- Sahebganj, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Premi Devi W/O Late Chandrika Paswan R/O Village- Himmat Patti, Ward
No. 1, P.S- Sahebganj, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjeet Patel, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.
P.P. for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge
SC/ST (PoA) Act, Muzaffarpur in Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 617 of
2024 whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant registered under
Sections 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(1)r, 3(1)(s)
of SC/ST Act and Sections 27, 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act
was rejected.
3. The case of the respondent, in short, is that the
appellant has fired in the mouth of the son of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3439 of 2025(6) dt.07-05-2026
2/2
He also submits that on last occasion, the stage of trial was also
called and the trial has been received from the learned trial court and
from perusal of which, it transpires that out of nine witnesses, five
witnesses have been examined and only four are remaining, even the
injured has also been examined. He further submits that the appellant
has got no criminal antecedent and languishing in judicial custody
since 22.12.2024.
5. Countering this, the learned Spl. P.P. have vehemently
opposed the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering that since the trial is at its fag end and there is direct
allegation against the appellant of firing in mouth, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this stage and, as such, his
prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the appellant may renew his prayer for bail
after three months, if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
9. This Court would advise the learned trial court to
conduct a calendar trial for expeditious disposal.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.