Patna High Court
Beyash MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as no fresh ground was shown and the seriousness of the offences warranted dismissal of the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Beyash Mukhiya, was charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for the murder of a person who opposed his illegal liquor business. He filed a second bail application after an earlier order granted bail to co‑accused but denied it to him. The petitioner argued that charges had not yet been framed, seeking this as a ground for bail. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the lack of any new ground for bail, and the procedural status of charge framing. Concluding that the gravity of the alleged crimes outweighed the procedural lapse, the court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite framing of charges. The decision reaffirmed the earlier order denying bail to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑framing of charges constitutes a sufficient ground to grant bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita precludes bail despite procedural delays.
- Whether any fresh ground exists on a second bail application to merit a review of the earlier order.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118, 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- charge framing
- serious offence
- East Champaran
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92017 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-295 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Beyash Mukhiya S/o Late Bhagrit Mukhiya R/o Vill- Kuwarpur, Bintoli, P.S.-
Pipra, Dist- East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Pipra P.S. Case
No. 295 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109(1), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 64127 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in
connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 295 of
2025 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109(1),
303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. The petitioners are accused of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92017 of 2025(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/2
killing the deceased because the deceased and
his family used to oppose the illegal business of
selling liquor by Beyash Mukhiya i.e., petitioner
no. 2 and thereafter, the petitioner no. 2 and
other accused persons are said to have
assaulted the victim and caused his death 4.
Considering the allegation levelled against
petitioner no. 2 i.e., Beyash Mukhiya, his
application for bail is dismissed.
5. So far as petitioner nos. 1 and 3
are concerned, considering the general
allegation against them and the fact that
petitioner no. 1 is a woman, their prayer for
bail is allowed.
6. Let the petitioner nos. 1 and 3,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, East
Champaran, Motihari in connection with Pipra
P.S. Case No. 295 of 2025.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges have not been framed.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that no fresh ground for grant of bail is made out, I am not
inclined to review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. The trial Court is expected to expedite the trial and
frame the charge in accordance with law.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…