Mithlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51143 of 2025 Arising out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2024 Thana- Manikpur P.S District- Arwal ====================================================== 1.
Mithlesh Kumar S/o Devlal Yadav R/o Village- Koni, P.S- Manikpur, Distt.- Arwal.
2.
Akhlesh Kumar @ Akhlesh Yadav S/o Devlal Yadav R/o Village- Koni, P.SManikpur, Distt.- Arwal. 3.
Rajendra Yadav S/o Badhu Yadav R/o Village- Koni, P.S- Manikpur, Distt.- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s:
Mrs. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 115(2), 127(1), 110, 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of B.N.S. They have no criminal antecedents.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along with others came to the door of the informant and started abusing him and when protest was made the Petitioner No. 3 assaulted him with iron rod causing head injury and, thereafter, when the brothers of the informant came to his rescue, Peti-
2/4 tioner No. 1 along with another person assaulted them with Gadanshi and Khanti causing head injuries and injuries on the hand and subsequently it is alleged that the Petitioner No. 2 and one accused Chandani @ Chando Devi @ Chandi Devi assaulted the mother of the informant with lathi, danda and snatched away the gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 50,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that from perusal of the injury report it would appear that the injuries sustained by the informant and others were found to be simple in nature and moreover the allegations made in the FIR is falsified by the injury sustained by the mother of the informant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that co-accused persons namely Devlal Yadav and Ors. have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31479 of 2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission of learned counsel, the petitioners, above named, are directed to be re-
3/4 leased on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Concerned Court, Arwal in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be canceled by the Court concerned. (iv) And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is
4/4 found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of the same or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) Vikash/- U T