Patna High Court
Amit Mishra @ Amit Kumar MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioners had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to merit release pending trial.
Summary
The petitioners, Amit Mishra and Chandan Mishra, were charged under IPC sections 341, 302, 504, 506, 34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at the informant's brother during a boundary dispute, resulting in his death. They sought regular bail, claiming innocence, lack of sufficient evidence linking each of the four accused to the three entry wounds found in the post‑mortem report, and reliance on a similar bail order granted to Munnan Mishra. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that the FIR does not exclude the possibility that all four fired and that the seriousness of the offences warrants custody. The court examined the factual matrix, the medical evidence, and the precedent, and concluded that the petitioners had not shown a compelling reason to be released on bail at this stage. Consequently, the bail applications were rejected, with the court directing the trial court to expedite the trial and allowing the petitioners to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in a case involving murder, attempt to murder, and offences under the Arms Act.
- Whether the existence of three entry wounds, as opposed to four accused, creates reasonable doubt sufficient to justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- murder trial
- post‑mortem evidence
- parity of cases
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82185 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Amit Mishra @ Amit Kumar Mishra S/o- Prem Shankar Mishra Resident of
village- Nibi, PS-Chand, Dist- Kaimur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 87418 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Chandan Mishra S/O Mohan Mishra R/O Village- Nibi, P.S- Chand, District -
Kaimur( Bhabhua)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 82185 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Kumari Anupam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate
Mr. Surendra Kr. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Shashikant, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 87418 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate
Mr. Surendra Kr. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Shashikant, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in
connection with Chand P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024 instituted for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82185 of 2025(6) dt.18-03-2026
2/4
the offence under Sections 341, 302, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant
was raising a boundary on his field along with his brother Ajit
Mishra and father Lalan Mishra. At that time, petitioners arrived
there and there was hot talk between them. After that, it is
alleged that when the informant party objected, Mohan Mishra
and Prem Shankar Mishra order the petitioners along with other
to kill, on this, Munnan Mishra, Amit Mishra, Ajay Mishra and
Chandan Mishra have fired with their arms and the gun shot hit
brother of the informant Ajit Mishra @ Dimpu who fell down
and ultimately, he succumbed to the injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are in judicial custody since 24.05.2025 and
12.06.2025 respectively. It has further been submitted that from
perusal of the order sheet of the learned trial court, it will
transpire that the bail bonds of the informant of this case was
cancelled in the counter case and that they are not appearing in
the learned trial court, that is why, the trial is hampered. He has
further submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82185 of 2025(6) dt.18-03-2026
3/4
there are four assailants and from perusal of the postmortem
report, it will transpire that the doctor conducting the autopsy of
the deceased has found three entry wounds, blackening of left
eye and graze abrasion 2cm x 1cm tip of right thumb. He has
further submitted that there are four assailants and only three
entry wounds were found this creates doubt and all the accused
persons can’t be fastened with the responsibility of firing as
there are only three entry wounds. He has further submitted that
Munnan Mishra having similar nature of allegation has been
granted bail by this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 15484 of 2026.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer
for regular bail of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the
informant has submitted that admittedly there is case and
counter case and from perusal of the postmortem report, it will
transpire that though there are three entry wounds and four
persons have made firing but it is not denied that firing was
made by four persons. It is not clear from the FIR as to whose
gun shot injury missed the deceased. He has also submitted that
as far as parity with the case of Munnan Mishra is concerned,
these petitioners have not got parity with the case of Munnan
Mishra as Munnan Mishra has also received gun shot injury and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82185 of 2025(6) dt.18-03-2026
4/4
his period of custody differs from these petitioners. He has also
submitted that he will cooperate in trial and shall make every
endeavour to get the trial concluded at the earliest.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case as
stated above, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail
at this stage and, as such, their prayer for bail stand rejected.
8. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to renew
their prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
9. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same within the period as stated above.
10. Learned counsel for the informant is also directed
to cooperate in trial so that trial may be concluded at the
earliest.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…