Dismissed¶24

Chhotu Mishra @ Krishna Kanhiya v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Apr 2025CR. APP (SJ)/153/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 153 of 2025; order dt. 10-04-2025; Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.; bail rejection appeal dismissed; Muffasil/Mufassil P.S. Case No. 112 of 2024, Khagaria; Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) BNS; Section 27 Arms Act; Section 3(2v) SC/ST Act; Chhotu Mishra @ Krishna Kanhiya; informant Mamta Kumari @ Mamta Devi; co-accused Chhabila Yadav; Ranbir Ram; general and omnibus allegation; no injury; caste-name abuse; custody since 10.09.2024; no criminal antecedent; parity with coordinate Bench order dt. 19.03.2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 5559 of 2024; trial to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant (referred to in the order as the petitioner). ¶23

Chhotu Mishra @ Krishna Kanhiya Vs The State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose prayer for bail was rejected by the trial court on 09.12.2024, is entitled to be granted bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 112 of 2024.

¶14

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant (referred to in the order as the petitioner).

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is dismissed.

¶24

Key takeaways

Ancillary direction: the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - appeal against rejection of bail dismissed (Patna High Court, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J., order dt. 10-04-2025 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 153 of 2025, arising out of PS Case No. 112 of 2024, Thana Mufassil, District Khagaria). Appellant Chhotu Mishra @ Krishna Kanhiya challenged the order dated 09.12.2024 of the Additional Session Judge 1st cum Special Judge SC/ST Act, Khagaria rejecting his bail prayer in a case under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 103(1) of the BNS, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2v) of the SC/ST Act. Prosecution version: the accused persons, including the appellant, attacked the informant (Mamta Kumari @ Mamta Devi) and her family members with firearms and abused/assaulted them by caste names; co-accused Chhabila Yadav allegedly fired upon and killed the informant's husband. Appellant's counsel urged false implication, general and omnibus allegation, that the specific firing allegation lay against co-accused Chhabila Yadav, that the appellant's alleged assault on Ranbir Ram caused no injury, absence of public-view caste naming attracting the SC/ST Act, custody since 10.09.2024 and no criminal antecedent. The learned SPP opposed, noting that a coordinate Bench had already rejected the co-accused's bail prayers vide order dated 19.03.2025 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 5559 of 2024. The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, declined bail, dismissed the appeal, and directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.153 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2024 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria

¶3

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

¶4

Chhotu Mishra @ Krishna Kanhiya S/O Late Manoj Mishra Resident Of Village- Amni, P.S- Mansi, Distt.- Khagaria.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Mamta Kumari @ Mamta Devi W/O Late Rohit Ram R/O Village- Amni, P.S- Mansi, Dist.- Khagaria.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jai Kishor Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP For the Informant : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 10-04-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. None appears on behalf of the informant despite notice being validly served. Perused the case diary.

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge 1^st cum Special Judge SC/ST Act, Khagaria whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 112 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2v) of SC/ST Act was rejected.

¶15

The prosecution case, in short, is that all the accused

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.153 of 2025(4) dt.10-04-2025 2/3

¶17

persons including the appellant attacked the informant and family members with firearms, abused and assaulted them by caste names. It is further alleged that co-accused Chhabila Yadav fired upon the informant’s husband as a result of which he died.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellant. The specific allegation of firing upon the deceased is against co-accused Chhabila Yadav. The only allegation against the appellant is that he assaulted one Ranbir Ram but, as a matter of fact, no injury has been caused to him. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has not taken the caste name of the informant in public view, hence, no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The appellant has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant in public view. The appellant is in custody since 10.09.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶19

Learned Special P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant, stating that the all the accused persons including the appellant committed

¶20

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.153 of 2025(4) dt.10-04-2025 3/3

¶21

the murder of the deceased. Learned SPP further submitted that prayer of the co-accused persons for grant of bail has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 5559 of 2024.

¶22