SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
BINOD MUKHIYA – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. MISC./66032/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66032 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2021 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul

======================================================

1.

Binod Mukhiya, Son Of Rajendra Mukhiya, Resident Of Village - Bela

Singar Moti, Tola- Camp Tola, P.S- Nirmali , Dist- Supaul

2.

Rajendra Mukhiya, Son Of Late Budiyar Mukhiya, Resident Of Village -

Bela Singar Moti, Tola- Camp Tola, P.S- Nirmali, Dist- Supaul

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Ms.Aprajita, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

2

12-05-2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to

remove all the defects as pointed out by office within two weeks

after start of normal functioning of the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram

Anurag Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The two petitioners in the present case are the son and

father respectively. They are seeking regular bail in connection

with Nirmali P.S. Case No.70 of 2021 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 326, 307, 379,

504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the

Arms Act. The petitioners are in custody since 16.05.2021. Both

the petitioners have got one criminal antecedent which is a case

lodged against them by brother of the informant being Nirmali

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66032 of 2021(2) dt.12-05-2022

2/4

P.S. Case No.64/2021.

As per the prosecution story, the named accused

persons including the petitioners had surrounded the brother of

the informant Ashok Mukhiya. It is alleged that Rajendra

Mukhiya (petitioner no.2) instructed the named accused to kill

Ashok Mukhiya whereon Khattar Mukhiya gave a farsa blow on

the head, Anil Mukhiya caused injury on both legs by an iron

rod and due to that when he fell down, Mukesh Mukhiya

snatched a golden chain wroth Rs.10,000/-, Raja Mukhiya

indiscriminately gave iron blows on his person which caused

injuries and other accused persons assaulted him by fists and

slaps. He tried to escape but then Binod Mukhiya (petitioner

no.1) fired upon him which caused injury on his stomach. The

victim was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Nirmali from

where he was referred to District Hospital for further treatment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both

the parties are fighting on a land dispute. Earlier they have

registered Nirmali P.S. Case No.63/2021 and 64/2021 against

each other. This time also there is a case and counter case. The

counter case has been lodged by petitioner no.2 being Nirmali

P.S. Case No.71/2021.

It is further submitted that both the petitioners have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66032 of 2021(2) dt.12-05-2022

3/4

remained in custody for almost one year, investigation against

them is complete but the trial has yet not concluded, therefore,

they deserve privilege of bail.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State has

opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners. It is

submitted that the petitioner no.1 has fired from a pistol on the

vital part of the body causing grievous injury to the brother of

the informant. Earlier also, petitioner no.1 was made accused in

Nirmali P.S. Case No.64/2021 in which there was an allegation

that he had assaulted the injured by a Dabiya. It is submitted

that in such circumstance for some time the petitioner no.1 does

not deserve privilege of bail.

Having regard to the submissions noted hereinabove,

the kind of dispute between the parties, there being a case and

counter case and further that so far as petitioner no.2 is

concerned, he has been made accused as an order-giver and has

remained in custody for about one year, this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top