Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18447 (PAT)

ANIL MANDAL v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./12262/2025 · 2025-05-15

Nawneet Kumar Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12262 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2024 Thana- BHAWANIPUR District- Purnia ====================================================== ANIL MANDAL S/o Late Chaturi Mandal R/o vill - Durgapur, Purwari Tola, P.S.- Bhawanipur, Distt.- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 15-05-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 100 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341, 342, 323, 379, 427, 504, 506/34, 120(B) of the IPC. 3. As per the allegation, in the backdrop of petty feud of way, the dispute arose and in consequence thereof, the accused persons including the petitioner damaged the thatched house of the informant. Further case of the prosecution is that on halla, the informant’s bhaisur Arun Mukhiya intervene to save and on that the petitioner is alleged to have caught hold Arun Mukhiya, brutally assaulted him and shot fired, as a result of which, Arun Mukhiya sustained fire arm injury and succumbed Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12262 of 2025(3) dt.15-05-2025 2/2 to the injury on the spot. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that there is no dispute between the petitioner and the deceased. As a matter of fact, some dispute existed between the petitioner and the brother of the deceased. It was not the intention of the petitioner to kill the deceased. The petitioner is a person of clean antecedents and is under custody since 04.12.2024 5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is main assailant and he fired gun shot which hit the deceased and he died. Chest cavity was filled with blood and blood clots, according to the post- mortem report. 6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected. Nirmal/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T