Patna High Court
Munilal Ram @ Munnilal RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied.
Summary
Munilal Ram applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered in 2022 involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR alleged that a group, allegedly acting on orders of certain individuals, fired weapons, pelted stones and threw a bomb, but the petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and that no specific allegation was made against him. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s antecedent of nine criminal cases, including offences under the UAPA, CCA and Explosives Acts, and argued that granting bail could enable him to abscond after a four‑year delay. The court considered the seriousness of the alleged offences, the petitioner’s criminal history, and the risk of non‑appearance. Concluding that the factors weighed against granting bail, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the alleged offences and his criminal antecedents
- Whether the lack of a specific allegation against the petitioner is sufficient to merit bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Conservation of Foreign Exchange Act
- Explosives Act
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 506
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- IPC
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36959 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2022 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Munilal Ram @ Munnilal Ram S/O Ramdev Ram R/O Village- Dih Buchauli,
P.S.- Jandaha, Distt.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Patepur P.S. Case No.142 of 2022, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of nine cases
and the informant alleges that 8 named accused persons
including the petitioner along with 20 unknown accused came to
his house and on orders of Kiran Devi, Amarjeet, Lalbabu
Sahni, Arvind and Rakesh started firing and rest accused pelted
stones and threw bomb, accordingly, the police was informed
and from the place of occurrence, empty cartridges were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36959 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/3
recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that on orders of Kiran Devi, Amarjeet, Lalbabu Sahni, Arvind
and Rakesh are alleged to have fired but then in the firing also
no one was injured and as far as petitioner is concerned, there is
no specific allegation against him rather allegation of throwing
bomb and pelting stones is general and omnibus in nature.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case is of
the year 2022 and from perusal of para-3 to the anticipatory bail
application, it would manifest that petitioner has antecedent of
nine cases, which also includes UAPA Act, CCA Act,
Explosives Substance Act etc. It is further submitted that if
privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may
abscond as petitioner has approached this court after four years
of the institution of the instant FIR.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36959 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.