Patna High Court

Sunil MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 January 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

Holding

The court denied regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Sunil Mukhiya was arrested in July 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 329(3), 352 and 351(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, accused of striking the informant’s husband with a sword causing a grievous facial injury. He contended that he is innocent, asserting that the case arose from a land‑dispute and that he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, pointing to the specific allegation and the corroboration of the prosecution’s witnesses. The court examined the FIR, case diary, injury report and noted that all witnesses supported the prosecution’s version. Considering the seriousness of the charges and the material evidence, the court refused to grant regular bail, but permitted the petitioner to renew the bail application after completing one year of custody before the trial court, without prejudice.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in view of the specific allegations of grievous injury and the supporting evidence.
Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication arising from a land dispute affects his eligibility for bail.

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
grievous injury
land dispute
false implication
Bihar Negotiable Statutes

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79824 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- BITHAN District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Sunil Mukhiya, aged about-38 years, S/o Sakindra Mukhiya @ Sikandar
                 Mukhiya R/o Village - Murli, P.s - Bithan, District - Samastipur

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
                 MALVIYA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   17-01-2026                           Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109,

                   329(3), 352, 351(2) of the BNS.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that

                   petitioner has hit a sword on the head of the informant’s

                   husband over a quarrel.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

                   case. He next submits that petitioner and informant are pattidar

                   and name of the petitioner has been transpired in this case due to

                   land dispute going on between the parties. He further submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79824 of 2025(3) dt.17-01-2026
                                            2/3




          that petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2025 and has got no

          criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific

          allegation against the petitioner that he had hit sword on the

          head of the informant’s husband due to which he sustained

          grievous injuries.

                       6. On perusal of the First Information Report, case

          diary along with injury report and impugned order dated

          24.09.2025, it appears that there is direct and specific allegation

          against the petitioner that he had hit a sword on the head of the

          informant’s husband due to which he got grievous injury on his

          face as ‘Incised wound on left side of face caused by sharp edge

          weapon.’ It also appears that all the witnesses have supported

          the prosecution case. So, considering all facts and circumstances

          of the case and submission of learned counsel of both the

          parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                       7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the

          petitioner is hereby rejected.

                       8. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew

          his prayer for bail after completion of one year of custody

          before the learned Trial Court and learned Trial Court may
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79824 of 2025(3) dt.17-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                       consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner without being

                       prejudice by this order.



                                            (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Harshita/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…