Chutahru Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20590 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2025 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Chutahru Mukhiya S/O Bauku Mukhiya Resident of Village - Naya Nagar (Moharrampur), Ward No. 18, Police Station - Jadiya, District - Supaul 2.
Buddhu Mukhiya @ Buddh Mukhiya Son of Boku Mukhiya Resident of Village - Naya Nagar (Moharrampur), Ward No. 18, Police Station - Jadiya, District - Supaul 3.
Sapen Mukhiya @ Sepan Mukhiya Son of Ram Prasad Mukhiya Resident of Village - Naya Nagar (Moharrampur), Ward No. 18, Police Station - Jadiya, District - Supaul 4.
Biren Mukhya Son of Maheshwari Mukhiya Resident of Village - Naya Nagar (Moharrampur), Ward No. 18, Police Station - Jadiya, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Patla Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs. (Dr.) Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No.94 of 2025, for having allegedly committed offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109(1), 74, 324(2), 303(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, registered on the basis of written report submitted by the informant, on 04.04.2025, all
2/4 the accused persons named in the FIR came to the house of the informant armed with iron rod and other arms and started demolishing the hut of the informant. When the informant tried to stop them, all the accused persons started assaulting the informant. The petitioners no.2 and 4 caught hold of the informant and assaulted her with leg and fist. When the son of the informant came to rescue her, accused Ram Prasad Mukhiya caught hold of him and the petitioner no.2 assaulted him on his head with a farsa due to which he sustained injuries and fell unconscious. When the husband of the informant came back to his village, upon receiving information, co-accused Parsuram Mukhiya assaulted him with iron rod and petitioner no.3 broke his hand.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are innocent and the First Information Report has been lodged after a delay of almost 28 days and there is no explanation for such delay. It is further submitted that, as per the injury report, the injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature, however her son and her husband have some injuries, out of which, one injury was found to be grievous in nature. It is also submitted that the petitioners have got clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
3/4 for bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it transpires that specific allegation of assaulting the son of the informant with farsa is on petitioner no.2, Buddhu Mukhiya @ Buddh Mukhiya due to which, the son of the informant sustained grievous injury and apart from the same, other injuries on the informant and her son are found to be simple in nature.
7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let petitioners no.1, 3 and 4, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District & Additional Sessions JudgeIV, Supaul in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No.94 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further condition that:- The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms
4/4 of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
8. So far petitioner no.2, namely, Buddhu Mukhiya @ Buddh Mukhiya is concerned, since specific allegation of assaulting the son of the informant with farsa is against him and due to which, the son of the informant sustained grievous injury, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2, Buddhu Mukhiya @ Buddh Mukhiya, and, accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to petitioner no.2, Buddhu Mukhiya @ Buddh Mukhiya is hereby rejected. (Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U T