Patna High Court
Ramanand Mukhiya @ Ramanand KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and violative of Article 21, and therefore granted bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramanand Mukhiya, was arrested in May 2024 on charges of murder, abetment of murder, and conspiracy under Sections 302, 201/34, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. An earlier bail application was rejected, with the court allowing a fresh petition after six months. The petitioner argued that the trial had not been committed to the sessions court, he had no prior criminal record, and continued detention violated his Article 21 right to liberty. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, noting the prolonged pre‑trial incarceration, the lack of trial progress, and the principle of parity with a co‑accused who had been bailed, held that further detention would be punitive and ordered bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being charged with murder and related offences.
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention violates the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused creates a parity requirement for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 302
- Section 201
- Section 34
- Section 120B
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10358 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2024 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa
======================================================
Ramanand Mukhiya @ Ramanand Kumar S/o Uttim Mukhiya @ Uttim Lal
Mukhiya R/o Village - Bhargama, P.S - Bheja, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nauhatta
(Darhar O.P) P.S. Case No. 126 of 2024, instituted for the
offence under Sections 302, 201/34, 120(B) of the I.P.C.
3. Earlier vide order dated 22.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 59988 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by
this Court considering the nature of accusation and the gravity
of the offence, with a liberty to renew the prayer after six
months if the trial is not concluded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10358 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
2/3
framed and till date, case has not been committed to the court of
session. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2024, having no criminal
antecedent. Learned counsel further submits that there is no
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.
Learned counsel goes on to submit that the continued
incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial
amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated
by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments. It is lastly
submitted that other co-accused in second attempt has been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025, passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 84972 of 2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, period of custody of the petitioner and taking into
account the fact that continued detention of the petitioner would
serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial incarceration,
which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India as also claim based on parity, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10358 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
3/3
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Nauhatta (Darhar
O.P) P.S. Case No. 126 of 2024, subject to the following
conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…