Mintu Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59319 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ====================================================== Mintu Kumar Singh S/o Ranvijay Singh R/o vill - Raghopur Dumari Bujurg, P.S. - Nayagaon, Distt.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-11-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S..

3. Earlier, vide order dated 01.09.2025, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High Court. From perusal of mediator's report dated 03.11.2025 it is apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties could not be resolved through the process of mediation.

4. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this petitioner, in collusion with other accused person, took Rs. 1,67,500/- from informant and other in lieu of providing D.A.P.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59319 of 2025(3) dt.25-11-2025 2/2 and urea for farming but later on, refused to provide the same and abused the informant.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he, along with co-accused person, defalcated a sum of Rs. 1,67,500/- from the informant and others in lieu of providing fertilizers and later on, refused to give the same and also abused the informant and others.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T