Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The bail application of the petitioner is dismissed.
Summary
Mukesh Kumar (Mukesh Yadav) was charged under IPC sections 302, 326, 307, 120B, 34 and Arms Act section 27 for allegedly firing indiscriminately at the father and brother of an informant, resulting in the father's death. The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that other co‑accused had been granted bail and that witnesses had identified specific roles for some accused. The prosecution contended that the FIR alleged indiscriminate firing by all accused, making it impossible to assign individual culpability, and that the case involved serious offences under sections 34/120. The High Court, recalling its earlier order and noting the seriousness of the allegations, dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the trial. The court also instructed the Superintendent of Police to take steps to locate an absconding co‑accused, Deepak Kumar.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with murder, attempt to murder, and offences under the Arms Act.
- Whether the presence of specific witness testimony assigning roles to some accused affects the bail decision.
- Whether the grant of bail to other co‑accused influences the petitioner's bail application.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 307, 326, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- attempt to murder
- conspiracy
- common intention
- arms act
- indiscriminate firing
- trial expedite
- absconding accused
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60060 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2023 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Yadav S/o- Sri Vijay Yadav Village- Kemkha PS-
Kotwali Dist- Munger
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 25-02-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Kotwali
P.S. Case No.349 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 302/326/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, the bail applications of the petitioner
was rejected vide order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous Nos.407 of 2024 and other analogous cases. The
aforesaid order dated 03.05.2025 reads as under:-
“Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior
Counsel for the informant as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners who are in custody
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60060 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
seek bail in connection with Kotwali P.S.
Case No. 349 of 2023 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections
302/326/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioners along with some accused persons
have indiscriminately fired upon the father
and brother of the informant. Both the father
and brother of the informant received gun
shot injury, as a result of which, the
informant’s father died on spot.
4. It has been submitted by Mr.
Agrawal that though all the accused persons
are said to have participated in the
indiscriminate firing in which one person has
been injured and another person has been
killed but subsequently, during investigation
witnesses have given specific role to some
co-accused Raja Kumar, Santosh Kumar and
Mukesh, therefore, they deserve bail.
5. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma,
learned Senior Counsel for the informant has
submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, there is
allegation of indiscriminate firing and it is
not possible for the witnesses to assign
particular role on particular accused when
six persons are said to have fired
indiscriminately. The firing details which
have been argued by Mr. N.K. Agrawal can
be considered by the trial judge and not this
Court. Moreover, the petitioners are being
prosecuted with the aid of Section 34/120 of
the Indian Penal Code.
6. Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel,
has also relied upon a judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in the case of
Parshuram Vs. State of M.P. (Criminal
Appeal No. 524 of 2021).
7. This Court has earlier rejected the
application of similarly situated co-accused
Raja Kumar@ Raja Babu in Cr. Misc. No.
10478 of 2024 vide order dated 20.02.2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60060 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
8. Considering the direct allegation of
indiscriminate firing against all the accused
persons, this application is dismissed.
9. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial.
10. During the course of argument, it
has been submitted by the learned counsel
for the informant that one co-accused
(Deepak Kumar) who is the main conspirator
is absconding and the police is not taking
proper steps for securing his presence in the
Court.
11. The Superintendent of Police,
Munger is directed to do the needful in view
of such serious allegations against the
absconding accused.
12. Let a copy of the order be
communicated to the Superintendent of
Police, Munger through FAX/e-mail
forthwith for compliance of the order.”
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that since other co-accused persons have been
granted bail by this Court, the petitioner also deserves bail.
5. On perusal of the orders, it appears that the
co-accused persons, who were not named by the injured
witness, have been granted bail by this Court and the co-accused
who have been named by the injured have not been granted bail
by this Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the
nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not
inclined to review my earlier order. Accordingly, this bail
application is dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60060 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. If the trial is
delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer
for bail.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.