Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31262/2026bail granted

Mithilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-13Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31262 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar S/O Late Ambika Paswan @ Ambika Das R/O VillageGangoura Badarwali, P.S.- Chandi, Distirct- Nalanda, Presently in judicial Custody at Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rounak Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kishore Kunal, Advocate For the Vigilance :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Rounak Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Spl. P.P. for the Vigilance and Mr. Shashank Chandra, learned counsel for the Informant.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 07.12.2025, in connection with Special Case No. 02 of 2026 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 05.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant for the payment of dues amount of Rs. 50,98,752/- of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31262 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/3 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R., even the petitioner is not competent to do the work of the informant as alleged in the F.I.R. and he is not the competent person to do the work of the informant. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted Chargesheet bearing No. 09 of 2026 against the petitioner on 30.01.2026 and the petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance as well as learned counsel for the Informant, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and he has not given the voice test before the prosecution agency and apart from that pretrap and post trap record reveals that the note number was the same.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the chargehseet has been submitted against the petitioner and the petitioner is not required in the present case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Speciual Judge

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31262 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 3/3 Vigilance, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 02 of 2026 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly present on each and every date fixed by the Court and if the petitioner fails to attend the Court in any date, the Vigilance is directed to move before the appropriate forum for cancellation of his bail bond.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

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