Gauri Shankar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1006 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.
Gauri Shankar Mandal S/O Saryug Mandal Resident of village- Sonma Baliya,Ward No. 04, P.S. Akbarpur ,District- Purnea 2.
Pappu Mandal Son of Mahesh Mandal Resident of village - Dumra, Ward No. 1 ,P.S. Akbarpur, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bimal Kumar, Adv.
For the State :
Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Amarnath Jha, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 109(1) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners and other FIR named co-accused persons entered into a conspiracy and towards execution of this conspiracy three unknown co-accused persons fired upon the husband of the informant causing injuries in his chest and right arm.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
2/4 petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The informant did not name the petitioners for firing upon her husband. Even in the statement of the injured Pappu Mandal there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against petitioner Pappu Mandal that he along with other unknown miscreants fired upon him but the petitioners and the informant side are agnates and land dispute is admitted. From the FIR it is also clear that three unknown persons fired upon the husband of the informant but nowhere the informant or her husband stated about the presence of the petitioners. Rather the allegation against them is that they along with their entire family members conspired for the alleged occurrence.
Altogether nine persons have been made accused in this case but the police after investigation submitted charge sheet only against three accused persons, two persons herein and one Saryug Mandal and exonerated other six FIR named accused persons. Even FIR has been lodged after much delay as for an occurrence of 25.07.2025, FIR has been lodged on 02.08.2025 without any satisfactory explanation. The petitioner no. 1 is having antecedent of one case whereas the petitioner no. 2 is having clean antecedent. They are in custody since 21.08.2025 and 07.08.
3/4 been submitted.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant has named these petitioners along with three other co-accused persons who fired upon the husband of the informant who sustained gun shot injuries which were found to be grievous in nature.
6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the general and non-specific nature of allegation against the petitioners and lack of substantive material to show their complicity and also considering submission of charge sheet against them and period of custody, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Udakishunganj (Madhepura)/concerned court, in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
4/4 relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Anuradha/- U T