Patna High Court
Mukesh RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of specific incriminating evidence and considering parity and the petitioners' fair antecedent, anticipatory bail should be granted.
Summary
The petitioners Mukesh Ram, Sabita Devi and Jaila Devi applied for anticipatory bail after being named in FIR No.237 of 2025 for multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness, no specific overt act was attributed to them, and that many other accused had already been granted bail, while they have a fair antecedent. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioners participated in a brutal assault that caused serious injuries to seven persons. The Court, noting the lack of direct evidence against the petitioners, the principle of parity with similarly situated accused, and their clean record, ordered that they be released on bail upon surrender within four weeks, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and the condition that one bailor be a close relative. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious nature of the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioners can be considered eye‑witnesses or have any specific incriminating act attributed to them.
- Whether the principle of parity with other accused who obtained bail and the petitioners' fair antecedent justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- fair antecedent
- parity
- serious offences
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15476 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2025 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Mukesh Ram, Son of Ruplal Ram, Resident of Vill- Bhimlapur, P.S.- Mehsi,
Dist- East Champaran.
2. Sabita Devi, wife of Mukesh Ram, Resident of Vill- Bhimlapur, P.S.- Mehsi,
Dist- East Champaran
3. Jaila Devi wife of Ruplal Ram, Resident of Vill- Bhimlapur, P.S.- Mehsi,
Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 01-07-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 237 of 2025 registered for
the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 76,
303(2), 190, 191(2), 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. While the informant was sitting at her door, she
came to know through the villagers that the accused persons
named in the F.I.R. have brutally assaulted several members of
her family by means of Lathi, Garasa, Farsa and Sword, due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15476 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
which they sustained serious injuries and were taken to hospital.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that
the informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence
and in fact the F.I.R. has been lodged against 66 named accused
persons, including the petitioners. The prosecution has not
attributed any specific overt act to the present petitioners;
moreover, out of seven persons, four of them sustained simple
injuries. With respect to remaining persons, the nature of injury
has been kept reserved. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, other
identically situated persons, who have approached the Court for
grant of anticipatory bail, their prayer has been allowed by the
learned coordinate Bench of this Court in 4930 of 2026 vide
order dated 07.04.2026, the copy of which has been placed on
record. The petitioners are the persons of fair antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the
petitioners along with others brutally assaulted the informant’s
family members, due to which seven persons have sustained
serious injuries.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the genesis of
the occurrence, coupled with the omnibus nature of allegation;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15476 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
besides the fact that the case of the petitioners are based on
parity and they bear fair antecedent, let the petitioners, named
above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court
below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, East Champaran, Motihari in connection
with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 237 of 2025, subject to the condition
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of
the bailors shall be the own/close relative of the petitioners.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.