Mithilesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89809 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- KANHAULI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Mithilesh Mahto S/o Yogi Mahto R/o Village- Dhangadda (Gonarawa), Ward No.4, P.S- Hirapur Barage, Dist- Sarlahi (Nepal). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Kanhauli P.S. Case No. 121 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that three persons on a bike and four cycles were carrying 16 gunny bags of Urea. They were apprehended and identified as the petitioner and two others.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one bike and four bicycles can't be operated by three persons. According to the FIR, there

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89809 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/2 were 16 gunny bags of urea fertilizer being carried on the cycle and the bicycles. It has also been submitted that from the perusal of the seizure list, it is clear that there is no description regarding the urea fertilizer. He also submits that the said urea was left on the responsibility of one Mukesh Kumar. He further submits that the petitioner is not a PDS dealer and the story of the prosecution is highly improbable. He further submits that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 12.08.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Sadar Sitamarhi in connection with Kanhauli P.S. Case No. 121 of 2025. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T