Mritunjay Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

6 08-10-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Deo P.S. Case No. 104 of 2010 instituted for the offences under Sections 307, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act.

¶15

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.11.2010, unknown extremists planted landmines and cylinder bombs at Pachokhar Tola Sundarnagar Khaira More to target police during elections. The bomb exploded while being defused, causing seven deaths and six persons injured.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10123 of 2024(6) dt.08-10-2025 2/3

¶18

petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. No independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2019 and has seventeen criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submitted that several coaccused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide Annexure-P/2 Series to the present bail application.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

As per the report dated 09.09.20225 sent by learned court below, it appears that charges against the petitioner were framed on 26.07.2022 but till date no any witness has been examined.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there being no significant progress in the trial as also the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10123 of 2024(6) dt.08-10-2025 3/3

¶23

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Deo P.S. Case No. 104 of 2010, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

¶25

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

¶26

(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶27

(IV) Petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below without taking prior permission of the learned court concerned.

¶28

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶29

Alok Verma/-

¶30

U T

Mritunjay Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mritunjay Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Raja Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Arbaz Alam @ Arbaz Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Gulshan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Barun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar @ Lallu Vs The State of Bihar