Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25220/2026dismissed

Mithun Yadav @ Prince Kumar @ Prince @ Prince Kr. v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-08Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25220 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Mithun Yadav @ Prince Kumar @ Prince @ Prince Kr. S/o- Late Gopal Yadav Resident Of Village- Badi Mirzapur, Ps- Kasim Bazar, Dist- Munger, P/A- Badi Jankipur Ps- Amarpur Dist- Banka ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Adv.

Mr. Surabh Raj, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 & 35 of Arms Act.

3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 17.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 63581 of 2025 which reads as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. The petitioner has been named by one Manohar Pandit from whose house the recovery of the country made pistol has been made.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25220 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026 2/2

4. The petitioner is in custody since 02.04.2025 and is accused in 19 cases which includes serious cases of murders, dacoity and loot etc.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and the criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed"

4. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

5. In the trial, three out of seventeen witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is accused in nineteen more cases out of which there are three cases of murder.

6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

8. If the trial is not concluded within one year because of the delay caused by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) sadique/- U