Patna High Court
Munilal Koda @ Munna KodaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted and dismissed the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Munilal Koda, was charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act arising from a Naxal encounter at Piri Bazar. He filed a second application for regular bail after an earlier bail plea was rejected by the same court. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the fact that the charges had already been framed in two Sessions Trials, and the potential threat to public order. Considering the gravity of the offences and the ongoing trial, the court declined to revisit its earlier order. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure witness attendance. The order was communicated to the police for compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences under IPC, Arms Act and UAPA
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be reviewed in a subsequent application
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk to public order or the trial process
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 121, 121(A), 124, 147, 148, 149, 307, 353
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23
Subjects
- bail
- UAPA
- Arms Act
- IPC
- Naxal
- high court
- criminal procedure
- serious offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36333 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2021 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Munilal Koda @ Munna Koda S/o- Andu Koda @ Andhu Koda @
Nageshwar Koda, Resident of Village- Bankuda, P.O. P.S.- Kajra, District-
Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Md Irshad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Piri Bazar P.S.
Case No. 133 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section
147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 121, 121(A), 124 of the IPC and
25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act and 16, 17, 18, 20, 21,
22, 23 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 46970 of 2024, which reads as
follows:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36333 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in the
present case registered for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 121, 121(A)/124 of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms
Act and Section 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
3. As per the F.I.R., when the police got
information that some naxals had assembled for
committing crime, they reached the place of
occurrence, but the accused persons started creating
hindrance in discharging the official duty of the police.
4. The naxals started firing and the firing
continued for one hour between the naxals and the
police party. A large number of ammunition and arms
have been recovered.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. This application for regular bail is
dismissed.”
4. From the report of the learned trial Judge, it
appears that the charge has been framed in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2023 and Sessions Trial No. 95 of
2024.
5. Considering the gravity of offence and also the
fact that the charges have been framed, I am not inclined to
review my earlier order
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36333 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
7. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai is
directed to ensure the appearance of the witnesses in the trial
so that the trial is not delayed.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai forthwith through
FAX or e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…