Mukku Dom @ Arun Dom v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4014 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-607 Year-2025 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Mukku Dom @ Arun Dom S/O Sri Virendra Dom Resident of VillageSabni, P.S- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran. 2.
Md. Imteyaz @ Imtiyaj Miyan S/O Sri Md. Haslam @ Md. Islam Resident of Village- Sabni, P.S- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since 16.10.2025, in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 607 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 15.10.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 313 of B.N.S. and Section 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case relates to recovery of one mobile phone and loaded country made pistol with live cartridges.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/3 in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R. that one Canvas Company mobile phone was recovered from the possesion of petitioner no. 2, namely, Md. Imteyaz and nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner no. 1, namely Mukku Dom @ Arun Dom and arms have been recovered from coaccused Rahul Kumar and petitioners have been made accused merely on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioners are in custody since 16.10.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioner no. 1 carries two more cases other than the present, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition in which he is on bail in the pending matters and petitioner no. 2 having clean antecedent..
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 607 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 3/3
(1) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T