Patna High Court

Jyotik MukhiaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioners subject to a bond, sureties and compliance with the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.

Summary

The petitioners, members of the Mukhia family, were charged in a 2018 case for assault, robbery and other offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC. They alleged that the incident stemmed from a land dispute with the informant, who belonged to the same village, and claimed the injuries inflicted were minor and that they have a clean criminal record. The State opposed the grant of pre‑arrest bail. The Court, after reviewing the medical report and the petitioners’ antecedents, held that the nature of the injuries and the circumstances warranted the release of the petitioners on pre‑arrest bail, subject to a bond and sureties. The order also directed the district court to verify any other criminal cases against the petitioners, which could nullify the bail. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to surrender within four weeks and comply with the bail conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
Whether the minor injuries and clean antecedent justify granting bail under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 307, 323, 341, 504, 506

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
assault
robbery
land dispute
IPC
CrPC
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20369 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2018 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Jyotik Mukhia Son of Late Jhaman Mukhia
           2.    Deepak Mukhia Son of Jyotik Mukhia
           3.    Rambabu Mukhia Son of Jyotik Mukhia
           4.    Birbal Mukhia Son of Jyotik Mukhia
           5.    Rinku Devi Wife of Mahesh Mukhia
                 All R/O Vill-Tikuliya, P.S-Pipra, Dist- East Champaran

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Subodh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Pipra P.S.Case No.136/2018, registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 307, 504 and 506 of

                   Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Trial No.1262 of 2025.

                                3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the

                   petitioners assaulted the informant and his other family

                   members with lathi-danda and iron rod, as a result, they

                   sustained injuries, as well as, petitioner no.4 snatched Rs.500/-

                   from the pocket of the informant’s son.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20369 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and the

          petitioners and the informant are of the same village. Learned

          counsel further submitted that there is a land dispute between

          the parties. All the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in

          nature. Petitioners have clean antecedent.

                       5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

          prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

                       6. Having considered the rival submissions of the

          parties, as well as, having perused the injuries sustained by the

          injured, which are simple in nature, the petitioners are directed

          to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or

          surrender before the district court within a period of four weeks

          from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten

          Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of learned J.M.-I, East Champaran, Motihari in

          connection with Pipra P.S.Case No.136 of 2018, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

          Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) of BNSS.

                       7. The learned district court is directed to verify the

          criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the

          petitioners is involved in some other cases as what has been
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20369 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will

                      automatically lose its force.



                                                (Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.