Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25438/2026rejected

Mithilesh Chauhan @ Mithilesh Mahto @ Mitles Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-09Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25438 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-532 Year-2025 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Mithilesh Chauhan @ Mithilesh Mahto @ Mitles Mahto S/O Bhimal Mahto R/O Village and P.S- Saksohara District Patna Bihar and at present Gali no - 13 Basant Vihar P S and District Karnal, Haryana ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The state of Bihar .. ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Anjana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2026 Heard Ms.Anjana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Nirmala Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 532 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 17.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2)/140(3)of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner came with other co-accused persons in a Car and took away informant and Govind Paswan in their Car. Informant jumped from the car while Govind was still seated and was taken away in a Car.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25438 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026 2/2 and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has been made accused in the present case due to some petty labour contract dispute and petitioner was not present on the date of occurrence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on other other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR and a number of witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and apart from that, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 in which he has stated the name of the petitioner, apart from that, the co-accused persons, namely, Nageshwar Ravidas and Nitish Kumar have been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.6414 of 2026.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 532 of 2025 pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-1st, Barh (Patna).

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T