Patna High Court
Jiyalal Ram @ Ram Prawesh RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail as there is no material linking him to the alleged murder, the investigation is complete, and there is no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, Jiyalal Ram, sought regular bail in a murder case (Sections 302/34 IPC) arising from the death of his wife, Manju Devi. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his sons discovered the dead body and that unknown persons, possibly including the petitioner, were involved. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the informant was not an eye‑witness, that the case stemmed from prior enmity, and that no incriminating material linked him to the crime. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court, after considering the completed investigation, the petitioner’s clean antecedents, his cooperation, and the lack of risk of absconding or evidence tampering, ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC
- Whether the completion of investigation and the period of custody justify granting bail
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- criminal procedure
- regular bail
- suspicion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10875 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2024 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Jiyalal Ram @ Ram Prawesh Ram S/o Raja Ram R/o Vill.- Maniyarpur, P.S.-
Rajepur, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Rajepur P.S. Case No.71 of 2024 for the offences registered under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant and his
sons were working as Labour at Village Machali at Punjab. On
09.04.2024 he called on the phone of his wife Manju Devi but she
did not receive, then he called on the phone of Chinta Devi who is
neighbor and Sali in relation, she received the call and assured
him to get him talked with Manju Devi. It is alleged that after
some time she informed him that his wife is lying dead at his
house, thereafter he and his sons came at their house and saw the
dead body of Manju Devi. It is further alleged that he gathered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10875 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
information that F.I.R. named accused persons and three to four
unknown persons have killed his wife and the co-accused Niraj
Kumar threatened to kill them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case
only on he basis of suspicion. He further submits that the
informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence. Learned
counsel submits that the whole family members of petitioner have
been dragged in this case due to previous enmity. He further
submits that there is no incriminating material against the
petitioner to link him with the alleged offence. Learned counsel
submits that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case
after completion of investigation. He further submits that
petitioner has got clean antecedent, he is in custody since
15.09.2025 and he undertakes to co-operate in the trial. There is
no chance of absconding the petitioner or tampering with the
evidence.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the
parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation
against the petitioner and the fact that investigation has already
been completed as well as the period of custody undergone by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10875 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
him, let the petitioner, named above, be enlarged on bail upon
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/ concerned
Court in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No.71 of 2024.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…