Patna High Court
Mukesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
In the absence of eye‑witness testimony and specific allegations, and with the investigation already concluded, bail must be granted subject to statutory conditions.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered bail applications filed by three petitioners—Mukesh Kumar, Sharwan Chaudhary and Dipu Malakar—arrested in connection with Gaya Muffasil Police Station Case No. 457 of 2025, which involved alleged indiscriminate firing during a land dispute. The petitioners argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness, that they were falsely implicated, and that bail had already been granted in a related case (Case No. 458). The State contended that the petitioners were actively involved, but could not dispute the lack of direct eyewitness evidence. The Court noted that the FIR contained only vague allegations, no injuries, and that the investigation was already completed with a charge‑sheet filed. Considering the absence of specific evidence, the completed investigation, and the precedent that criminal antecedents alone should not bar bail, the Court ordered the release of each petitioner on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under the BNSS and CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the informant is not an eye‑witness and the allegations are vague.
- Whether the grant of bail in a related FIR (Case No. 458) influences the present bail application.
- Whether the completion of investigation and filing of charge‑sheet precludes bail.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(9), 27
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 111(4), 113(3), 122(1), 122(2), 125, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 437(3)
Subjects
- bail
- eye‑witness
- informant
- arms act
- bhartiya nyaya sanhita
- criminal antecedent
- land dispute
- investigation completed
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62020 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-457 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shrikant Sharma Resident of Moh.- S.S. Colony, P.S.-
Muffasil, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 74825 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-457 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Sharwan Chaudhary @ Sharwan Kumar S/o Anandi Chaudhary @ Anand
Chaudhary R/o Village- Bhadeja, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 74867 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-457 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Dipu Malakar @ Dipu Mali S/o Naresh Malakar R/o Village- Bhadeja
Devisthan, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62020 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 74825 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Priya Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 74867 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-01-2026 Cr. Misc. No. 62020 of 2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/9
2. The accused/petitioner apprehending his arrest in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 457 of 2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109,
125, 122(1), 122(2), 113(3), 111(4) of BNS & 25(9), 27 of Arms
Act.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has two criminal
antecedents and the informant alleges that he received an
information that indiscriminate firing is being resorted to in
between two groups to take possession of the land situated at S.S.
Colony, Bakri Farm, accordingly the informant alongwith the police
force reached the place of occurrence when accused persons fled
and four empty cartridges were recovered from the place of
occurrence. Further the informant from the spy came to know
about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence. It is
submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have been
granted bail by one of the learned co-ordinate Bench through Cr.
Misc. No. 69835 of 2025 dated 01.11.2025.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant. It is
submitted that form perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR,
it would manifest that informant is not an eye-witness of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/9
occurrence, rather the name of the petitioner transpired on the
basis of information provided by the spy. It is submitted that it is
very easy to implicate someone based on secret information. It is
submitted that for the same occurrence, Meena Devi instituted
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 458 of 2025 under various sections of BNS
read with Arms Act and SC/ST Act against the petitioner and
others. It is further submitted that Meena Devi also taking cue
from the instant FIR instituted the second FIR. It is further
submitted that though there is allegation that indiscriminate firing
was resorted to, but then no one was injured. It is further
submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State submitted that
petitioner found actively involved in the occurrence. However, it is
conceded that informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as prima facie informant is not the eye-witness
of the occurrence and in subsequent case for the same occurrence
as lodged by Meena Devi i.e. Mufassil Case No. 458 of 2025,
petitioner is on bail, accordingly, above named petitioner, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court,
within a period of four weeks of the order, is directed to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
4/9
released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Gayaji/concerned
Court, where the case is pending in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 457 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Cr. Misc. No. 74825 of 2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gaya
Muffasil P.S. Case No.457 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 125,
122(1), 122(2), 113(3) and 111(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’) as well as Sections 25(9) and
27 of the Arms Act.
3. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and are
in custody since 18.05.2025.
4. As per FIR, there was indiscriminate cross firing
between two groups of land mafias, where informant is the Police
Inspector of Gaya Muffasil Police Station.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that as per FIR, it can be gathered safely that the firing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
5/9
was made indiscriminately from both sides, where none received
injuries. It is submitted that the occurrence took place in the
background of land dispute between the parties. It is further
pointed out that except five empty cartridges in support of
indiscriminate firing, nothing can be gathered in support of
allegation. It is further submitted that regarding same occurrence,
one private person, namely, Meena Devi lodged a separate FIR,
which was lodged as Muffasil P.S. Case No.458 of 2025, where
petitioner was granted bail by learned trial court itself. While
concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case
is already completed for which, charge-sheet has been submitted
and, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
6. Explaining criminal antecedent of petitioner, it is
pointed out by learned counsel that petitioner found involved in
total of 12 cases, where he is on bail in 08 cases. It is pointed out
that in maximum of cases, the petitioner implicated merely on the
basis of suspicion as of present case, as he is dealing with land
related business. It is submitted that if the merit of this case
otherwise convincing in favour of petitioner, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedent, prayer of bail ordinarily should not be
declined. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon
the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court available through
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
6/9
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648.
7. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail could
not disputed the aforesaid submissions as submitted by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
8. In view of aforesaid factual submissions, as
allegation of firing is not specific against this petitioner, where
implication prima facie appears to be made under the garb of
allegation of indiscriminate firing, coupled with the fact that
investigation of this case is already completed, where petitioner is
in custody since 18.05.2025, accordingly, above-named petitioner
is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gayaji, in connection with Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No.
457 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
437(3) of the CrPC/under Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’).
Cr. Misc. No. 74867 of 2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gaya
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
7/9
Muffasil P.S. Case No. 457 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 125,
122(1), 122(2), 113(3) and 111(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’) as well as Sections 25(9) and
27 of the Arms Act.
3. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and are
in custody since 30.06.2025.
4. As per FIR, there was indiscriminate cross firing
between two groups of land mafias, where informant is the Police
Inspector of Gaya Muffasil Police Station.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that as per FIR, it can be gathered safely that the firing
was made indiscriminately from both sides, where none received
injuries. It is submitted that the occurrence took place in the
background of land dispute between the parties. It is further
pointed out that except five empty cartridges in support of
indiscriminate firing, nothing can be gathered in support of
allegation. It is further submitted that regarding same occurrence,
one private person, namely, Meena Devi lodged a separate FIR,
which was lodged as Muffasil P.S. Case No.458 of 2025, where
petitioner was granted bail by learned trial court itself. While
concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
8/9
is already completed for which, charge-sheet has been submitted
and, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
6. Explaining criminal antecedent of petitioner, it is
pointed out by learned counsel that petitioner found involved in
total of 08 cases, where he is on bail in all cases. It is pointed out
that in maximum of cases, the petitioner implicated merely on the
basis of suspicion as of present case, as he is dealing with land
related business. It is submitted that if the merit of this case
otherwise convincing in favour of petitioner, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedent, prayer of bail ordinarily should not be
declined. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon
the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court available through
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648.
7. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail could
not disputed the aforesaid submissions as submitted by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
8. In view of aforesaid factual submissions, as
allegation of firing is not specific against this petitioner, where
implication prima facie appears to be made under the garb of
allegation of indiscriminate firing, coupled with the fact that
investigation of this case is already completed, where petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62020 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
9/9
in custody since 30.06.2025, accordingly, above-named petitioner
is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gaya, in connection with Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No.
457 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
437(3) of the CrPC/under Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…