Patna High Court
Vivek MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the lack of substantive evidence against the petitioner warranted the grant of regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Vivek Mishra, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Bairgania PS Case No. 05 of 2022) alleging offences under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case rests on a confessional statement by a co‑accused and the petitioner’s presence at a shop, with no eye‑witness, no identification parade, and no direct evidence linking him to the crime. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the confessional statement is inadmissible, and that the material collected does not substantiate the charges. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court, after reviewing the record, found the evidentiary material insufficient and ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail with conditions, allowing the trial to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and conspiracy offences
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused and the petitioner’s presence at the shop constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- IPC
- evidentiary value
- confessional statement
- identification parade
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8789 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2022 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Vivek Mishra Son of Raju Mishra Resident of village- Gaur PS -Gaur Dist-
Rauhat @ Rauthat, Nepal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rampravesh Nath Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar,A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No.
05 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 201, 120 (B) and 34 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along
with named co-accused persons and other unknown miscreants
came to the house of the informant and took informant’s son
Rohit Kumar Jaiswal with them and when he did not return for
about 2-3 hours the family members started looking for him but
did not find trace of him. It is alleged that subsequently the dead
body of the deceased son of the informant was found lying
underneath a pul near Bagmati Purana Ghat.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8789 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. He further submits that the F.I.R has been registered
after the recovery of the dead body. The name of the petitioner
transpired on the basis of confessional statement of Prithvi
Singh Chauhan before police while in police custody which has
got no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The material against
the petitioner is that he was found to be present at the shop
along with co-accused persons and the deceased is a subsequent
development by the prosecution to falsely implicate the
petitioner, since no Test Identification Parade of the petitioner
has been done. There is no eye witness to the occurrence of the
murder. The motorcycle allegedly used/seen at the meat shop
was of co-accused Prithvi Singh Chauhan @ Lakshpratap Singh
and not that of petitioner. It has further been submitted that the
materials collected during the investigation does not support the
allegation against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is in
custody since 10.09.2025 and he is accused in one case but is
not out of same offence. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in
the trial.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8789 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
6. Heard the parties and perused the record,
considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties, let the
petitioner above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sitamarhi in connection with
Bairgania P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022, subject to the following
condition:-
(i) The petitioner shall be present on each and every
date fixed in the trial and on default on two consectuive dates
without any valid reason, the court below would be at liberty to
cancel his bail bond.
(ii) It is further directed that the petitioner would not
tamper with the evidence and if he does so, the prosecution
would be at liberty to file an appropriate application for
cancellation of his bail bond.
7. The application stands allowed
(Praveen Kumar, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…