Patna High Court
Mallu Yadav @ Ashok PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to all petitioners.
Summary
Four individuals filed anticipatory bail applications arising from a single FIR (Police Station Ghoshi Case No. 429 of 2025) alleging offences under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR records that on 15 August 2025 a young man, Twinkle Kumar, was shot dead and that the petitioners had previously threatened him. The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated, citing lack of eyewitnesses and no prior police complaint about the threat. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the prior threats. Considering the gravity of the alleged crimes and the threat to the victim, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed all applications.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence and the prior threat to the victim justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the absence of eyewitness testimony and lack of a prior police complaint affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 103
- Arms Act
- serious offence
- bail denial
- FIR
- threat
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88816 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Munna Prasad @ Munna Kumar S/O Ram Pravesh Prasad Resident of Village
- Pritam Bigha, P.S. - Ghoshi, (Okari), District - Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89009 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Mallu Yadav @ Ashok Prasad Son of Late Doman Prasad @ Doman Yadav
Resident of Village- Pritam Bigha, P.S.- Ghoshi (Okari), District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89046 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Pintu Kumar S/O Bhallu Yadav @ Ashok Prasad @ Mallu Yadav Resident of
Village - Pritam Bigha, P.S. - Ghoshi, Okari, District - Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89169 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-429 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Ram Pravesh Prasad Son of Late Doman Yadav Resident of Village - Pritam
Bigha, Police Station - Ghoshi (Okari), District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88816 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 88816 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shyamal Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89009 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shyamal Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89046 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shyamal Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 89169 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shyamal Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akwshay Lal Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 1. Since all these four anticipatory bail applications arise out
of Ghoshi (Okari) Police Station Case No. 429 of 2025,
with the consent of the parties, all these applications are
heard together.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. These applications, for grant of anticipatory bail, arise out
of Ghoshi (Okari) Police Station Case No. 429 of 2025,
dated 15.08.2025, disclosing offences punishable under
Sections 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 15.08.2025, at about 00:15 hours, co-villager of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88816 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
the informant, Mita Prasad, came to the house of the
informant and told him that his son, Twinkle Kumar, was
shot dead near the dalan of Mita Prasad. On this
information, all the family members rushed towards the
dalan of Mita Prasad and saw that the son of the
informant was lying in the lane and blood was oozing out
of his head. The informant alleged that two days prior to
the occurrence, the petitioners, along with other co-
accused persons, had threatened the deceased to kill him,
and the deceased had disclosed this fact to his family
members.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated
in this case due to dispute regarding passage. He further
submits that the allegation against the petitioners are
general and omnibus in nature and there is no eye-witness
to the alleged killing of the son of the informant. He
further submits that the deceased had not informed the
police about the threaten given by the accused persons.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that
the petitioners are named in the First Information Report.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88816 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
He further submits that just prior to the occurrence, the
deceased had been threatened by the accused persons and
the deceased had himself disclosed this fact to his family
members. He next submits that the offence is serious in
nature and the case is still under investigation.
7. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the
seriousness of the offence and the fact that just prior to
the occurrence, the deceased was threatened by the
accused persons, including the petitioners, I am not
inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory
bail.
8. These applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…