Patna High Court
Harsh MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court held that, given the filed charge‑sheet, the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s age and custody period, regular bail could be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Harsh Mishra, was accused of offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 308(5), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly threatening, assaulting and extorting an informant. He claimed the case was fabricated to dispossess him of his land and pointed to a two‑day delay in filing the FIR and the fact that a co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. The Court examined the charge‑sheet, the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s young age (23) and the period of custody already served. Finding no risk of evidence tampering or absconding, the Court ordered regular bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties. The petitioner was released on bail pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged fabrication of the case justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 308(5), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- regular bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- fabricated case
- delay in FIR
- age of accused
- evidence tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12684 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2024 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Harsh Mishra Son of Dilip Mishra @ Dilip Kumar Mishra Resident of
Village- Shirnia, P.S.- Gogari, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
308(5), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. It is alleged that this petitioner along with other co-
accused persons threatened the informant and pulled him in the
vehicle in which an unknown person was already sitting.
Thereafter, the accused persons snatched two mobile phones and
one gold ring of the informant. It is further alleged that the
accused persons took the informant at lonely place and asked
him to bring two lakh rupees from his father. The accused
persons assaulted the informant and also made his naked video.
Thereafter, informant talked to his uncle and told about the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12684 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/3
whole incident. After that, the uncle of the informant came with
two lakh rupees which was taken by a masked man and after ten
minutes, the accused persons discharged the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. As a matter
of fact, petitioner is a landlord of the locality and in order to
grab his land, this false and fabricated case has been lodged
against the petitioner and he has been made accused in seven
other cases also. There is no injury found on the informant as
alleged. There is two days delay in lodging the F.I.R. which
itself create a doubt over the prosecution case. Petitioner has
himself surrendered before the Court concerned on 11.11.2025.
It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused Rustam
Yadav has been granted bail by the Court concerned and from
perusal of the bail order, it appears that the informant has
compromised the case with the said co-accused which also
shows doubtfulness over the prosecution case. Petitioner is a
young boy of 23 years. The charge-sheet has already been
submitted after completion of investigation. Petitioner
undertakes to co-operate in the trial. There is no chance of
tampering with the evidence or absconding of the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12684 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/3
application of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the fact that charge-sheet has been
submitted, nature of the allegation, age of the petitioner and
period of custody undergone, let the above named petitioner be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Khagaria/concerned Court in connection with Gogri P.S. Case
No. 434 of 2024.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…