Patna High Court
Munna ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
Munna Chauhan and his wife Pratima Devi, who are in custody, applied for bail in a case (Kateya P.S. Case No. 354 of 2024) alleging they assaulted and caused the death of an informant's mother, offences charged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution claims the accused, along with two others, attacked the victim twice, leading to her death, while the defence argues the allegations are false, no weapon was used, the post‑mortem shows only minor injuries, and the FIR was lodged after the death with no eyewitness testimony. The court examined the lack of corroborative evidence, the clean antecedent of one accused, and the procedural delays, and concluded that bail could be granted with strict conditions. The bail order requires a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, presence in court on trial dates, and provisions for cancellation if conditions are breached. The order emphasizes that any observations made herein will not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record justifies denial of bail in a murder‑related case
- Whether the accused are likely to flee or tamper with evidence
- Whether the procedural delay in filing the FIR and lack of eyewitness testimony affect bail eligibility
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- assault
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S.
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91995 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2024 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Munna Chauhan S/O Gorakh Chauhan R/O Village- Koisa Khurda, P.S.-
Kateya, District- Gopalganj
2. Pratima Devi @ Pratibha Devi W/O Munna Chauhan R/O Village- Koisa
Khurda, P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners, who are in custody, seek bail in
connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 354 of 2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation
against the petitioners is that they, along with two other
named accused persons, without any reason started
assaulting the mother of the informant due to which she
sustained head injury and the informant hurriedly took her
to the primary health centre for treatment. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91995 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/5
alleged that again on the same day in the evening at around
5:00 P.M., all the four persons again came and started
assaulting his mother due to which she died at the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are falsely being implicated in the present
case and no such incident as alleged has occurred. He
further submits that from the perusal of the FIR, it would be
evident that no means of arms are being stated to be carried
by the four persons by which they had assaulted the mother
of the informant. It has further been submitted that though
the informant has stated that the mother of the informant
was taken to a government primary health centre after the
first assault, however, nothing has been brought on record
during the course of investigation to show that the mother
of the informant has received any injury and she was treated
at the government primary health centre. It has next been
submitted that from the perusal of the postmortem report, it
would be evident that only two injuries were found, one on
the thigh of the deceased while the other on the scalp of the
deceased which is said to be the cause of the death. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91995 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/5
FIR, it is also evident that there was no motive of such
assault and prima facie it seems that the informant himself
was not an eyewitness and only on suspicion the name of
the petitioners have been given in the present case. It has
also been submitted that though the death of the mother of
the informant occurred in the evening of 12.09.2024 and the
post-mortem was also done on the same day at 9:00 P.M.,
still no fardbeyan was recorded by the police on 12.09.2024
and 13.09.2024 and as an afterthought, the petitioners have
been implicated in this case when the FIR was lodged on
14.09.2024. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner
no. 1 has clean antecedent while petitioner no. 2 is accused
in one another case and they both are in custody since
07.10.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the
petitioners are the named accused persons and the mother of
the informant is said to have died due to such assault
inflicted by them.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and
taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91995 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/5
let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection Kateya P.S. Case No.
354 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be
their close relative and the other shall be local resident.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91995 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
5/5
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any,
made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…