Mangal Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70383 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2014 Thana- BHAWANIPUR District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Mangal Mandal S/O Rajendra Mandal Resident of Village Saidpura Budhu Chowk, P.S- Gopalpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur 2.
Anil Mandal S/O Suresh Mandal Resident of Village -Mahatwachap, P.SBhawanipur, Dist.- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Subhash Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2. Petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on account of land dispute, all the 13 FIR named accused persons including these petitioners and other unknown accused persons made firing on the informant side causing injuries to the father and the sister of the informant. Father of the informant died due to the fire arms injuries.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70383 of 2025(4) dt.09-12-2025 2/2 submits that allegation of firing is general and omnibus and no specific overt act has been alleged against these petitioners. As a matter of fact, informant had forcibly captured 2.23 acre land which was purchased by the petitioners' side and for taking possession of the said land, occurrence took place. Case and counter case. Petitioners claim clean antecedent and they are in custody since 1.7.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the gravity of accusation as well as the materials collected during course of investigation, prayer for bail of these petitioners is refused.
7. Since, petitioners are in custody, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a year.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U T