Patna High Court
Prem Shankar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations and procedural context insufficient to warrant release.
Summary
Prem Shankar Jha applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 103, 61, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting the son of an informant at DMCH gate on 5 August 2025. The informant alleged that the shooting stemmed from a family dispute arising from the marriage of his son to Jha's daughter, and claimed Jha threatened to kill. The petitioner argued he has a clean antecedent, that the informant was not an eyewitness, and highlighted procedural lapses such as failure to produce him before a magistrate within 24 hours and inconsistencies in the FIR and charge sheet dates. The State contended that the informant’s specific allegation of murder created a strong prima facie case and that the motive was evident. After hearing both sides, the Court found the allegations sufficient to deny bail and rejected the regular bail application.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and the evidentiary material?
- Do procedural irregularities in the arrest and production of the petitioner justify bail?
- Whether the family dispute motive impacts the assessment of bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103, 3(5), 61
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- arms act
- family dispute
- procedural delay
- prima facie case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86628 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- Benta District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Prem Shankar Jha S/o- Late Kedar Nath Jha Resident of village- Banagaon
P.S- Banagaon District- Saharsha
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Adv.
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Benta
P.S. Case No.133/2025, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 103, 61, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections
25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that he received an information on 05.08.2025
at 5.30 P.M. that his son Rahul was shot at DMCH gate, further
his son was shot by Prem Shankar Jha (petitioner), father of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86628 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/5
Tanu Priya, accordingly he came to the place of occurrence and
came to know that Prem Shankar Jha (petitioner) along with his
son Ashwani, Avinash and wife Gunjan Kumari had come, next
alleges that his son about two months back had performed love
marriage with Tanu Priya, daughter of Prem Shankar Jha
(petitioner), as they were studying in first year of nursing at
B.Sc. Nursing College, next alleges that Prem Shankar Jha
(petitioner) had threatened earlier to kill and had also filed a
case at Banagaon P.S. and statement of Tanu Priya was recorded
in the Court, thereafter Tanu Priya came at informant’s place.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it
would manifest that informant is not an eyewitness to the
occurrence. It is next submitted that the allegations are in two
parts, in the first part, the informant alleges that on 05.08.2025
at 5.30 P.M. he received an information that his son was killed
by Prem Shankar Jha (petitioner), thereafter he came to the
place of occurrence and there he came to know that Prem
Shankar Jha (petitioner) was accompanied by his sons and wife
but then it is submitted that the FIR does not even remotely
discloses that who informed the informant about the presence
of the petitioner at the place of occurrence. It is next submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86628 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
3/5
that son of the informant had married the daughter of Prem
Shankar Jha (petitioner) and the marriage was being opposed by
the family members of Tanu Priya as such Prem Shankar Jha
(petitioner) had instituted a criminal case also but then Tanu
Priya did not support the case of the prosecution and being a
major came to the house of the informant. It is further submitted
that since tension was brewing in between the family on account
of marriage in between son of the informant and daughter of
Prem Shankar Jha (petitioner), as such the petitioner came to be
implicated in the instant case. Learned Senior counsel next
submits that from perusal of the FIR, it would manifest that the
same is dated 06.08.2025. It is next submitted that the
occurrence was committed at 5.30 P.M. on 05.08.2025 and the
petitioner was arrested on 05.08.2025 at 5.40 P.M. itself but then
the petitioner was not produced before the learned Magistrate
within 24 hours. It is next submitted that the FIR was sent to the
learned trial court on 07.08.2025 and charge sheet came to be
submitted on 11.08.2025 and from perusal of the charge sheet, it
would manifest that the same records that the petitioner was
arrested on 11.08.2025 and thereafter was produced before the
learned trial court on 12.08.2025.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86628 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
4/5
behalf of the informant submits that raising these issues the
petitioner had moved before this Court by filing Cr. WJC
No.240/2026 but then the said writ application was dismissed by
an order dated 11.02.2026. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant submits that no doubt there is some lacuna but
then the lacuna cannot be seen at the stage of bail when the
informant specifically alleges that he had information that
petitioner killed his son. It is also submitted that since daughter
of the petitioner had married the son of the informant, hence
tension was brewing and earlier petitioner had also instituted a
criminal case but then his daughter did not support the case of
the prosecution and came back to the family of the informant as
she intended to lead a peaceful conjugal life with the son of the
informant. It is also submitted that these facts also goes on to
show that petitioner was harbouring a motive against the son of
the informant. It is next submitted that why a father would try to
implicate someone who was not involved in the occurrence of
killing his son. It is submitted that every endeavour of a father
would be to ensure that the person who is guilty of committing
the murder of his son is not spared. It is also submitted that till
date charges have not been framed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86628 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
5/5
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…