Convicted for life, after a feud to death: The story of Munna Shukla, a rival, and Bihar politics
A STORY from the Bihar badlands, of legendary friends turned arch rivals, a feud lasting four decades and several murders, may have entered yet another chapter.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court confirmed the life sentence for former MLA Vijay Kumar Shukla alias Munna Shukla in the 1998 murder of ex-Bihar minister Brijbihari Prasad. The Court gave Shukla – who had appealed in Court against its order of October 2024, sentencing him to life – 15 days to surrender.
Whether this is the end of the road for Shukla – who has survived other convictions, including of murder, while making strides in politics – is another matter, however.
The killing of Brijbihari Prasad in June 1998, for which Shukla stands convicted, had been sensational, with the then ruling RJD leader gunned down at Patna's Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. In 1999, the case was transferred to the CBI. Ten years later, a Patna trial court sentenced Shukla and five others to life terms.
In October last year, the Supreme Court convicted Munna and Mantu Tiwari, another Bihar politician, and gave them life, while giving the other accused the benefit of doubt. In its Thursday order, the Court said it did not find 'any good ground and reason to review' the October judgment.
Shukla was also convicted in another high-profile case, the 1994 lynching of then Gopalganj DM G Krishnaiah. In 2008, the Patna High Court acquitted him and five others, while commuted the death sentence given to former MP Anand Mohan in the case to life. Anand Mohan was given remission in 2023 and released from jail. Krishnaiah's wife challenged the remission in the Supreme Court, where the matter is pending.
It was from Lalganj, Vaishali, in the 1970s that the story of the Shukla brothers – Chhotan, Bhutkun and Munna – began. The Bhumihar strongmen started off as petty contractors, which is how they came in contact with Prasad, a contractor from Motihari belonging to the OBC community.
A Muzaffarpur-based journalist recalls: 'There was so much camaraderie between Brijbihari Prasad and the Shuklas at one stage that Prasad's wife Rama Devi would tie a rakhi to the eldest of the Shukla brothers, Chhotan, on Rakshabandhan.'
Soon, the Shuklas' renown spread, as they ran up a list of allegations, particularly of extortion, and later, moved into politics. The brothers' expanding interests and muscle power brought them into conflict with Prasad, who too had graduated to politics after his business took off on the strength of government contracts. By 1982, the Shuklas and Prasad were officially at war.
A retired police officer, who once served in Muzaffarpur, said: 'They targeted each other's supporters, resulting in several killings between 1983 and 1985. While the two groups were suspected to have a hand, no FIRs were filed against either side.'
According to the former police officer, there was still peace as long as both Chhotan and Prasad enjoyed the patronage of influential Congress leader Raghunath Pandey, who was the Muzaffarpur MLA from 1985 to 2000. 'But then Prasad tried to defy Pandey, and Chhotan emerged as the latter's favourite.'
With Pandey's backing, Chhotan went about securing the support of most of the prominent upper caste leaders, particularly Hemant Shahi, the son of former minister and Bhumihar Congress leader L P Shahi. By 1990, Chhotan moved his attention full-time to politics, leaving the control of contracts to Bhutkun.
The thorn in the Shuklas' side, however, remained Prasad – who, having fallen out of favour with Pandey, found a benefactor in the RJD. Getting a jump over the Shuklas, he became an MLA and a minister in 1990 in the Lalu Prasad government. He also grew close to Begusarai muscleman Ashok Sharma a.k.a Ashok Samrat, a Bhumihar.
This triggered a fresh round of turf war as, bolstered by power, Prasad tried to curb the Shukla brothers' influence. The escalating cycle of violence culminated in Chhotan's killing in 1994. Police made hardly any headway in the murder, finally filing a closure report in 2020.
Chhotan's death meant Bhutkun took over the Shukla family reins. In 1994, he was named along with younger brother Munna in the lynching of G Krishnaiah.
Police officers say that Chhotan evaded them by remaining confined largely to his village Khanjahachak, which was surrounded by rivers from three sides while, on the fourth, there was an escape route to Uttar Pradesh via Saran.
In March 1997, Prasad's close aide Onkar Singh was killed, with the hand of the Shuklas suspected in it.
Months later, in October 1997, Bhutkun was killed by his own bodyguard. Officers say the bodyguard had been planted by his rivals back in 1995, and gained Bhutkun's confidence over the next two years. The bodyguard was never caught, and Bhutkun's killing too remained unsolved.
Eight months later, on June 13, 1998, Munna allegedly struck back, getting Prasad at the Patna hospital where he was admitted due to several ailments. Apart from Munna, police booked UP's Sriprakash Shukla, another known mafia don, and politicians Rajan Tiwari and Suraj Bhan, along with six others in Prasad's killing.
Sriprakash was killed in September 1998. In 2009, a Patna court sentenced all the others accused to life. In July 2014, the Patna High Court acquitted them.
The coming together of the upper-caste Rajputs and Bhumihars, who would make up about 8% of the state's population, could be a threat to the RJD politics. Lalu had a taste of it when the Bihar People's Party, formed by Anand Mohan, fielded Chhotan's widow Kiran Shukla from the Kesaria Assembly seat in the 1995 polls.
She lost though to CPI OBC candidate, Yamuna Yadav.
In 2005, the Shuklas made a fresh foray into politics, when Munna contested on the ticket of RJD rival JD(U) from the Lalganj Assembly seat and won. After his conviction in 2009, Munna's wife Annu contested from the seat as an Independent in 2010 – and retained it.
As is the way of politics, things have come full circle, with Munna now with the RJD – the party he was pitted against all these years. Last year, before the Supreme Court conviction came, he contested the Lok Sabha polls from Vaishali as RJD nominee against the LJP (Ramvilas)'s Veena Devi, but lost.
In the Assembly elections due this year, Munna was hopeful of getting a ticket again, for either himself or wife Annu, from Lalganj. The seat incidentally is represented by the RJD's Sanjay Kumar Singh currently.
On the other side, Prasad's wife Rama Devi is also well-entrenched in politics, having won as the Sheohar MP thrice, in 2009, 2014 and 2019, from the BJP. In last year's Lok Sabha elections, Rama was denied a ticket from Sheohar, with the nomination going to BJP ally JD(U)'s Lovely Anand, who won. Lovely Anand, incidentally, is the wife of Anand Mohan.
RJD spokesperson Mrityunjay Tiwari indicated the turf war may continue – at least in politics. 'What can one say about the Supreme Court's verdict? Munna Shukla will explore more legal options,' Tiwari said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Anticipatory bail must not be given mechanically: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has said anticipatory bail in cases involving serious offences should not be given in a mechanical manner. A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta made the observation while setting aside an order of anticipatory bail to four accused in a murder case. "The order of the High Court does not disclose any reasoning for granting anticipatory bail in a matter involving serious offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC," the bench said in its May 1 order. It continued, "The impugned order is cryptic and lacking in judicial analysis. In cases involving serious offences, the grant of anticipatory bail in such a mechanical manner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside." On a plain reading of the FIR and accompanying material, the court noted that the appellant's father was assaulted and killed in the presence of the appellant, who was also the informant. "The incident appears to have stemmed from a dispute regarding obstruction of a pathway. The specific roles attributed to the accused, as stated in the FIR, indicate that they participated in the assault even after the deceased had collapsed," the top court said. The high court, it said, "clearly failed" to appreciate the gravity and nature of the allegations in the case. The accused persons was, as a result, directed to surrender within eight weeks. The order came on a plea filed by the son of the victim, challenging the order granting them anticipatory bail. The victim was assaulted in 2023 with an iron rod and sticks during a dispute between neighbours. As a result of the head injury, he succumbed to injuries the same day and an FIR was registered on the basis of the appellant's statement against seven accused persons.
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
The Story Of Filmmaker Roshaan Khattak, Hunted By Pakistan, Let Down By Cambridge
On April 10, 2025, UK MP John McDonnell issued a stark warning to the University of Cambridge: 'It is absolutely essential that his research into the critical issue of the Balochistan genocide is not obstructed - regardless of pressure from the Pakistani state.' His message, sent to Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice and Wolfson College President Ijeoma Uchegbu, called for urgent clarity on how the university was responding to security concerns surrounding a postgraduate researcher facing threats. 'I would therefore be most grateful,' McDonnell added, 'if you could clarify any current security concerns and let me know how I and other Members of Parliament familiar with the Balochistan situation might offer assistance.' Why Both China And Pak Are Interested McDonnell was advocating on behalf of Roshaan Khattak, an Oscar-nominated filmmaker and academic whose proposed doctorate at Cambridge investigates enforced disappearances and other genocidal crimes in Balochistan - a region of Pakistan intersected by China's multibillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Politically explosive, both Islamabad and Beijing have a deep interest in controlling the narrative. And so, what began as a scholarly project has morphed into a high-stakes test: will one of the world's most prestigious universities defend academic freedom, or capitulate to the pressures of transnational repression? Roshaan's ordeal began in December, when he started receiving explicit threats. One anonymous message warned: 'Don't forget even Cambridge and the UK is not safe. They can get anywhere…. Don't be stupid.' According to security analysts, the threats bear the hallmarks of Pakistan's intelligence services. Rather than receiving institutional support, Khattak says he encountered obstruction. Wolfson College abruptly revoked his accommodation, changed his door locks without notice, and permitted staff to access his room while he was abroad - compromising hard drives that stored sensitive data. He also reports that key emails mysteriously vanished from his university account. All of this, he says, occurred without a formal security review. Anonymous emails also warned that 'senior staff had mentioned that the Pakistani state via its embassy and networks… [is] not happy with your research' and cautioned that 'just like they were looking for excuses to cancel your room, they will now be looking to cancel your PhD'. 'Do It Yourself' The university's response? Roshaan was told Cambridge lacked the 'resources or expertise' to help, and was advised to rely on 'his own resources'. This is no isolated case. Transnational repression - the long arm of authoritarian regimes targeting exiles and dissidents abroad - is now a grim feature of global politics. In the UK alone, police thwarted an assassination attempt on Dutch-based Pakistani activist Waqas Goraya. Scotland Yard has issued warnings to Iranian journalists in London. And in November 2023, Pakistani exile Shahzad Akbar survived an acid attack in England, widely believed to be orchestrated by Pakistan's ISI. What's new, however, and deeply troubling, is the encroachment of these tactics into British universities. Dr Andrew Chubb, who serves on the UK Parliament's working group on the issue, has described Khattak's case as 'a clear instance of transnational repression'. He's right. The threats are credible. The patterns are familiar. And the institutional response has been shamefully inadequate. Cambridge, of all places, should know better. Between 2020 and 2024, the university accepted up to £19 million from Chinese sources. That alone should have triggered safeguards and scrutiny when a researcher's work touched Beijing's strategic interests. Instead, the university appears to have treated the problem not as a matter of principle, but of risk management - removing the vulnerable rather than confronting the powerful. This goes far beyond Cambridge. If one of Britain's most prestigious universities can't - or won't - protect a single postgraduate researcher, what hope is there for smaller institutions? What message does this send to young academics investigating authoritarianism, state violence, or contested territories? A Break-In, A Threat For Roshaan, the risks are not theoretical. 'Two years ago,' he recalls, 'I travelled to Stockholm to investigate the mysterious assassination of fellow journalist Sajid Hussain Baloch. Right at the start of my investigation, my hotel room was broken into. My cameras, laptop, passport, and hard drives containing invaluable research were stolen. A man carrying a dagger was reportedly seen on my floor that very night.' Khattak, who is part of the working group for UK Parliamentary inquiry into transnational repression, has since submitted detailed testimony to the Parliament and proposed a model draft for the Transnational Repression Bill, calling for visa bans, asset freezes, and criminal penalties targeting foreign officials who orchestrate threats or harassment abroad. These are not abstract proposals. They are urgently needed tools in an increasingly hostile global landscape. Universities Must Do Better The stakes could not be higher. The deaths of Sajid Hussain in Sweden and Karima Baloch in Canada at the hands of Pakistani intelligence are grim reminders of what happens when states silence dissenters. Without formal safeguards - whether through the Office for Students, the Department for Education, or another body - Khattak's case won't be the last. As authoritarian regimes grow more aggressive, academics researching politically sensitive topics will continue to face serious threats, often without any institutional backup. Universities must decide what they stand for. Academic freedom is not just a slogan for glossy brochures. It's a moral and academic duty. And it's tested not in moments of comfort, but under pressure. Cambridge failed that test. The rest of the world should take note. Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
40 minutes ago
- Business Standard
RBI Guv flags crypto concerns, says it may hamper financial stability
RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra on Friday said the central bank is concerned about cryptocurrencies as it can hamper financial stability. Malhotra was replying to a question during a media interaction post the RBI monetary policy about the developments in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's observation on crypto currency last month. "There is no new development as far as crypto is concerned. A committee of the government is looking after this. Of course, as you are aware, we are concerned about crypto because that can hamper financial stability and monetary policy," Malhotra said. The Supreme Court has last month asked the Centre to formulate a "clear cut" policy on regulating cryptocurrency, while underlining its impact on the economy. A Supreme Court bench termed the Bitcoin trade as an illicit trade more or less like "hawala" business. India is currently working on a discussion paper for cryptocurrencies and an inter-ministerial group (IMG), comprising officials from RBI, Sebi and finance ministry, is looking into global norms. In absence of any regulation, cryptocurrency is not yet illegal in India. The discussion paper will give the stakeholders an opportunity to give their views before India decides on its policy stance on cryptocurrencies. In 2022, the government announced a flat 30 per cent tax on gains arising from cryptocurrencies. Taxing income from cryptocurrencies does not necessarily and explicitly legalise cryptocurrencies. Currently, crypto assets are unregulated in India. Here cryptocurrencies are regulated from the perspective of anti-money laundering law. Besides that, income tax and TDS is levied on earnings from trading in such virtual digital assets. Also, GST is levied on cryptocurrency exchanges. It may be noted that, on March 4, 2021, the Supreme Court had set aside an RBI circular of April 6, 2018, prohibiting banks and entities regulated by it from providing services in relation to virtual currencies.
