Patna High CourtCR. MISC./89122/2025bail rejected

Mithlesh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-24Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89122 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2020 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== Mithlesh Chaudhary Son of Late Dulli Chaudhary Resident of VillageBhadaur, P.S.- Nardiganj, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sonam Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Nardiganj P.S.Case no. 192 of 2020 registered under sections 302, 147,148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the ten named accused persons including the petitioner herein are said to have assaulted with iron rod, sword, lathi, etc. leading to the death of the informant's son. The petitioner and one another are said to have assaulted with a sword.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Three persons have been acquitted in the learned trial Court. The petitioner is in custody since 29.7.2025 and investigation in the case is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89122 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 complete. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR, there is direct allegation against him of having struck the informant's son with a sword and the allegations are supported by the contents of the postmortem report.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, the contents of the postmortem report and the petitioner having absconded for about 5 years before being taken into custody on 29.7.2025, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U T