Dhirendra Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60782 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2023 Thana- ANDHRAMATH District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Dhirendra Mukhiya Son of Late Rameshwar Mukhiya R/o Village - Rauahi, P.S. - Andhramath, District - Madhubani.

2.

Dinesh Mukhiya Son of Late Rameshwar Mukhiya R/o Village - Rauahi, P.S. - Andhramath, Dist. - Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Andhramath P.S. Case No. 43/2023 dated 28.03.2023 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 363, 365 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on added sections 302, 201, 120B of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the coaccused persons are alleged to have abducted the mother of the informant. It is further alleged that earlier the petitioner no. 1 also threatened her mother to kill.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60782 of 2025(2) dt.15-09-2025 2/2 case. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. There is nothing against the petitioners except suspicion. There is a delay of six days in lodging the FIR. The petitioners have clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioners are in custody since 27.03.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioners by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioners. It is further stated that during investigation, the dead body of the informant's mother was recovered. It is further stated that witnesses have also supported the prosecution case and stated that prior to the alleged occurrence, the petitioners and others have threatened the informant. The petitioners were last seen near the house of the deceased on the date of occurrence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. The application stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T