Mohan Ram @ Brij Mohan Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88643 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Panna Lal Ram S/o Bega Ram Permanent Resident of Village- Kavai, P.S.- Dawath, Imirta, P.S.- Suryapura, District- Rohtas- 802221, Present AddressGayatri Bhog Colony Nayagaon, Bhiwani, Santhala, Alwar, Biwani ind. Area, Alwar, P.S.- Alwar, Rajasthan- 301019 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1656 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Mohan Ram @ Brij Mohan Ram S/o Late Chunmun Ram Resident of Village- Kavi, P.O.- Dawath, P.S.- Surajpura, District- Rohtas, Bihar -802221 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 88643 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Purushottam Narayan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ojaswee Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1656 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Purushottam Narayan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Shivam Aniket, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-04-2026 Both these applications are arising from the same P.S Case i.e. Suryapura P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025, hence, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
2/4 APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred these applications for grant of regular bail in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that on 02.06.2025 at about 8:00 A.M., her husband had gone to Bikramganj. Thereafter, at about 9:00 A.M., she received information that her husband had been done to death, and his dead body was lying on the eastern side of the canal near the Imrita village.
4. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner Panna Lal Ram in Cr. Misc. No. 88643 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. It has further been submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence of the murder. The FIR was lodged after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, and during the investigation, the mother and father of the deceased expressed only suspicion, apart from such suspicion, there is no cogent and reliable material against the petitioner. The petitioner has no
3/4 criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody since 11.07.2025. The charge sheet has been submitted, and there is no allegation of tampering with evidence. Moreover, the confessional statement of the petitioner before the police has got no evidentiary value in the eyes of the law, and no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
5. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner Mohan Ram @ Brij Mohan Ram in Cr. Misc. No. 1656 of 2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, and his name has surfaced only on the basis of the confessional statement of coaccused Panna Lal while in police custody, which has got no evidentiary value in the eyes of the law. It has further been submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence of the murder. The FIR was lodged after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, and during the investigation, the mother and father of the deceased expressed only suspicion, apart from such suspicion, there is no cogent and reliable material against the petitioner. No incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody
4/4 since 09.06.2025. The charge sheet has been submitted, and there is no allegation of tampering with evidence.
6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, let the petitioners, above-named, be enlarged 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 learned Court concerned, Rohtas, in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025.
8. The applications stand allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J) Jyoti/- U T