Mithu Kumar @ Miththu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3149 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-597 Year-2024 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Mithu Kumar @ Miththu Kumar S/o Ram Babu Yadav @ Rambabu Rai @ Rambabu Singh R/o Village- Sheikhpura, P.S.- Ram Krishna Nagar, DistrictPatna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP.

Mr. Saket Anand, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-02-2025 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ram Krishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 597 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 103(1), 61(2), 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons and 5-6 unknown persons came at the house of the informant and resorted firing upon the informant's husband from desi katta due to which he died on the way to hospital.

4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3149 of 2025(2) dt.14-02-2025 2/2 been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against him is totally false and based on concocted facts. Nothing specific has been attributed against him. The informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. The postmortem report of the deceased suggests that single shot was fired, but the concerned firearm injury is not attributed to this petitioner. Similarly situated co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 07.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85410 of 2024. Learned senior counsel further submits that petitioner has one criminal antecedent and he has been languishing in custody since 10.08.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T