Patna High Court – Orders
Mukesh Kunwar @ Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.378 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2016 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Mukesh Kunwar @ Mukesh Kumar S/O Ram Krishan Kunwar Resident Of
Village-Pidhouli, P.S.-Teghra, District-Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Prenshu, Adv.
Mr. Purshottam Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)
15 17-07-2026
I.A. No. 04 of 2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present petition was taken on board for
considering prayer of bail and suspension of sentence under
Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.)/Section 430(1) of BNSS as filed in memo of appeal,
as preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C./ Section
415 (2) of BNSS.
3. The appellant has been convicted by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.378 of 2020(15) dt.17-07-2026
2/7
judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2020 and order of
sentence dated 30.01.2020 passed by learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge-XI, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial
No. 139 of 2017 (arising out of Teghra P.S. Case No. 115 of
2016), whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘) and
he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further undergo simple
imprisonment for three year of imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act and fine of Rs.
5,000/-. All aforesaid sentences ordered to run concurrently
and and in default of payment of fine, further undergo extra
imprisonment for two month.
4. As per FIR, appellant-accused alleged to commit
murder of son of the informant/ P.W.- 12 by causing gun
shot injury while he was returning to his home on
03.05.2016.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Ajay Thakur learned
counsel for the appellant-convict that learned trial court
convicted appellant without proper appreciation of evidences
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.378 of 2020(15) dt.17-07-2026
3/7
available on record. It is submitted that the major
contradictions were overlooked by learned trial court and was
not appreciated as per settled position of law, making the
conviction of appellant questionable.
6. With aforesaid note, it is submitted by Mr.
Thakur that the appellant-accused remains in custody since
05.05.2016 and as such he remains in custody for more
than 10 years. In this context Mr. Thakur relied upon the
legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Muna Bisoi vs. State of Odisha [2026 LiveLaw (SC)
176] where Honorable Supreme Court by reaffirming its
own view taken in Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab
reported in 1977 (4) SSC 291, held that on the basis of
long incarceration convict be released on bail.
7. Exploring the merit of the case, it is pointed out
by Mr. Thakur that statement of P.W. 1 as recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded after one and half
months of the occurrence, which categorically suggest that
the appellant-convict was implicated as an afterthought. It is
also pointed out that P.W.-2 made statement during the trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.378 of 2020(15) dt.17-07-2026
4/7
that his statement was never recorded by the police under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Similarly, it is pointed out that
P.W.- 3 and 4 didn’t named appellant during the trial,
whereas the statement of P.W.-5 was recorded prior to
lodging of written report with police. It is pointed out that
P.W.-6 is not the eye witness of the occurrence and similarly
P.W.- 7 and 8 are the official witnesses who being Doctor
conducted autopsy upon the deceased son of the informant.
8. Traveling over the argument, it is further
submitted out by Mr. Thakur that the status of P.W.- 9, 10
and 11 claiming themselves as eye witness of the
occurrence, also appears doubtful. It is submitted that P.W.-
12 is informant and there are major contradictions in his
testimony, which was completely overlooked by learned trial
court.
9. It is further argued that several witnesses, who
were examined during the trial and supported the case of
prosecution, appears interested witnesses being relative of
deceased and informant. It is submitted that therefore, their
testimony is “not wholly” reliable and as such the conviction
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.378 of 2020(15) dt.17-07-2026
5/7
which was secured by learned trial court on the basis of such
testimonies appears questionable under law.
10. In support of his submission learned counsel
relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2007) 14 SCC 150.
11. It is also submitted by learned counsel that
rest of the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.- 13, 14, 15, 16,
17 and 18 are formal in nature.
12. Summing up all aforesaid argument together
with custody period, it is submitted by Mr. Thakur that
liberty was granted to appellant while dealing with I.A. No. 3
of 2024 that if appeal of this case is not heard before
25.02.2026, it is open for appellant to file separate I.A. for
suspension of sentence. In this context, it is submitted that
appeal is of year 2020 and same is not likely to be heard in
near future, and therefore, taking long period of
incarceration appellant-accused deserves bail.
13. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that P.W.-12 who is the informant of this case is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.378 of 2020(15) dt.17-07-2026
6/7
an eye witness of the occurrence and specifically deposed
that this appellant caused bullet injury on back of the
deceased, which proved fatal. It is submitted that same also
appears corroborating in view of the testimony of P.W.- 7
and 8, who conducted autopsy upon the deceased. It is also
submitted that the issues and evidences, which was raised
by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be re-
appreciated at this stage, in view of legal report as available
through Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary
and Anr. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123, however he
could not disputed the custody period as submitted
aforesaid.
14. In view of above discussed factual and legal
submissions and by taking note of fact as appellant remains
in custody since 05.05.2016 i.e., more than nine years, and
the present appeal is of year 2020, which is not likely to be
heard in near future, accordingly accused/appellant, above
named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 139 of 2017 (arising out of Teghra P.S.
Case No. 115 of 2016) on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.378 of 2020(15) dt.17-07-2026
7/7
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge-XI, Begusarai, during pendency
of appeal.
15. Sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
appellant is suspended till disposal of the appeal and
recovery of fine be also kept in abeyance.
16. Appellant shall co-operate in disposal of this
appeal.
17. Observations, as regard to merit, if any, shall
be of no bearing while final hearing of this appeal.
18. Re-notify this case as per its own seriatim for
hearing.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
( Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/Shashank
U T
