Bhupendra Kumar Mehta @ Bhupendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67321 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-273 Year-2023 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul ====================================================== Bhupendra Kumar Mehta @ Bhupendra Kumar S/o Chandeshwari Mehta R/o Village - Fulkaha, Ward No.- 16, P.S - Jadia, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the Case Diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No. 273 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that while the informant was coming with her husband, all the F.I.R. named accused persons assaulted the husband of the informant by means of lathi, Fatta, iron rod, leading to his death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that due to previous land dispute against the petitioner, the whole members of the family have been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67321 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026 2/2 implicated in this case. From perusal of the F.I.R. it is crystal clear that the informant is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. No specific allegation against the petitioner rather the same are the general and omnibus in nature. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 02.04.2025 and has one criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted on the head of the the husband of the informant by means of iron rod. The independent witness namely, Kalanand Yadav in para 33 of the case diary stated that petitioner and other co-accused have assaulted the husband of the informant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and specific allegation of assault by means of iron rod to the husband of the informant is against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T