Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners but denied it to the other two.
Summary
The petitioners—Meera Devi, Vishvanath Kumar, Priti Devi and Mukesh Kumar—were named in FIR No. 184 of 2025 for alleged murder of an informant's son under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They contended that the death was due to illness, that the post‑mortem report was inconclusive, and that they have clean antecedents, seeking anticipatory bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the FIR allegation of homicide and alleging improper relations among the accused. The Court examined the medical report, the case diary, and the alleged motives, and decided to grant bail to Meera Devi and Vishvanath Kumar on the condition of a Rs.30,000 bond, while refusing bail to Priti Devi and Mukesh Kumar. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was partially granted.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the FIR allegations and the evidence on record.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 2(1)(d), 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- post‑mortem report
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19169 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Meera Devi Wife of Ashok Prasad @ Karu Mahto Resident of Village-
Kujapi, Ps- Chandauti, Dist- Gaya
2. Vishvanath Kumar @ Vishvanath Mahto son of Ashok Prasad @ karu Mahto
Resident of Village- Kujapi, Ps- Chandauti, Dist- Gaya
3. Priti Devi @ Priti Kumari Wife of Late Munna Kumar @ Bhutali Resident
of village- Olipur, Ps- Narahat, Dist- Nawadah
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26614 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Prasad Son of Amirak Mahto Resident of Village-
Olipur, P.S.- Narhat, District- Nawadah
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19169 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26614 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
4 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State in both the cases.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19169 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
2. The petitioners of both the cases (Cr. Misc.
No.19169 of 2026 and Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026) apprehends
arrest in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 184 of 2025
lodged on 12.06.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections
103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
four named accused persons (the petitioners of both the cases).
It has been alleged by the informant that all the accused persons
have assaulted his son and killed him and thereafter, fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel submits that the death of the informant’s son has been
caused at the informant’s house itself. He submits that the
petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of 2026 are the
mother in law, brother in law and wife of the deceased,
respectively. He submits that the petitioner no.3 is basically the
victim in this case and she has unnecessarily been made accused
in this case. He further submits that the petitioner of Cr. Misc.
No.26614 of 2026 is the sadhoo of the deceased. He submits
that the death of the informant’s son has taken place due to
illness and the petitioners were made accused by the family of
the deceased unnecessarily. Counsel submits that earlier, case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19169 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
diary along with postmortem report of the deceased have been
called for. From perusal of the postmortem report, it transpires
that the doctor had conducted the external examination of the
body of the deceased, by which it appears that the external
injury cannot be visible due to swelling and marbling of the
body and as per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death
cannot be ascertained so viscera were preserved and sent for
F.S.L examination and the final opinion was reserved till
receiving the F.S.L report. He further submits that the petitioners
of both the cases have clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners of both the cases and submits that as per
the FIR, there is specific allegation that all the accused persons
have killed the informant’s son. He further submits that earlier,
case diary along with postmortem report of the deceased have
been called for in this case. From perusal of the case diary, it
transpires that the wife of the deceased (petitioner no.3 of Cr.
Misc. No. 19169 of 2026) has intimate relation with her jija i.e.
petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026 which has been
figured by the different witnesses in the case diary, and in para
41 of the case diary which is the analysis of C.D.R on the date
and just thereafter, the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19169 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
and the petitioner no.3 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of 2026 have
talked 227 times.
6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the petitioner nos.1 & 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169 of
2026 be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand)
each as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to
the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nawada, in
connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 184 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
7. So far as the petitioner no.3 of Cr. Misc. No. 19169
of 2026 and the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.26614 of 2026 are
concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to them.
Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.