Patna High Court
Mukesh SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing release on bond subject to conditions under Section 482(2) CrPC.
Summary
Mukesh Sahani applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving multiple serious offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The FIR alleged that two persons, Pankaj and Bhutkun, were killed in an altercation, with the petitioner purportedly shooting Bhutkun. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness, the allegations were based on suspicion, and the petitioner has a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail. The High Court examined the credibility of the informant’s statement and the petitioner’s background, and held that the allegations did not justify denial of bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304, 120B, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26, 27 Arms Act.
- Whether the lack of an eye‑witness and reliance on suspicion is sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304, 323, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- Section 482 CrPC
- clean antecedent
- suspicion
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9135 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2022 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mukesh Sahani S/O Babulal Sahani R/O Village- Basantpur, P.S- Paroo,
Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prasoon Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 302, 304, 120B, 504 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that two dead bodies were recovered and the
same was identified as that of Pankaj and Bhutkun. Further
body of Pankaj had firearm injury and a pistol was lying near
the two dead bodies. It is next alleged that he came to know that
Pankaj, Bhutkun along with Ranjit were returning home after a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9135 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
liquor party, when on the way there was an altercation amongst
the three and Bhutkun with his pistol shot Pankaj dead and in
the meantime, nearby people gathered along with petitioner who
shot Bhutkun to dead.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is
next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR, it would manifest that informant, who is a Chaukidar,
alleges that two dead bodies were found lying at the place of
occurrence and he came to know later that Pankaj, Bhutkun
along with Ranjit were returning after a liquor party and on
account of an altercation amongst them, Bhutkun shot Pankaj
thereafter people gathered and they along with Ranjit assaulted
Bhutkun to death. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence nor he has
disclosed that who saw the occurrence or the petitioner
assaulting Bhutkun. It is next submitted that the entire allegation
hinges around suspicion and even presuming what has been
alleged is true without admitting, then it is not the case of the
prosecution that it was only petitioner who along with Ranjit
assaulted Bhutkun to death as it has been alleged that nearby
people gathered who assaulted Bhutkun. It is thus reiterated and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9135 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
submitted that when informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence, as such, the entire allegation hinges around
suspicion when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, is
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court where the case is pending/successor Court in
connection with Paroo P. S. Case No.471 of 2022, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…