Patna High Court
Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case exists against the appellant and consequently denied bail.
Summary
Mithilesh Kumar was charged with firing at an informant, causing gunshot injuries, and allegedly abusing the informant in a caste-based manner. The charges were under Sections 352, 351(3), 109(1) of the Bihar Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(i), (r), (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, seeking bail from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had denied it. The appellant argued that the injuries were simple, there was no intention to cause death, and the caste abuse was not made in public view, citing a Supreme Court precedent. The prosecution countered with medical evidence of multiple iron‑filled wounds corroborating the FIR. The court found a prima facie case of firearm injury and caste‑based abuse and therefore rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in view of the alleged firearm injury and caste‑based abuse.
- Whether the alleged caste abuse was made in public view, satisfying the requirement under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
- Whether the injury sustained by the informant is simple and indicative of lack of intent to cause death.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- firearm injury
- caste abuse
- criminal appeal
- limitation period
- substituted service
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3765 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2025 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Yadav S/O Suresh Prasad Yadav @ Suresh
Yadav Resident of village- Nagama, Pilich, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhaso Manjhi S/O Late Tulsi Manjhi Resident of village- Nagma, P.S.-
Hilsa, District- Nalanda
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short
‘the Act’) against the order dated 23.08.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIth cum Special
Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in A.B.P. No.
1382 of 2025 in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 437 of
2025 registered under Sections 352, 351(3), 109(1) of
BNS, u/s 27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST
(POA) Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3765 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as
prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. Notice appears served to respondent no. 2 by
way of substituted mode of service, which shows that it has
been served validly upon informant but failed to join the
present proceedings.
5. Allegation against appellant is to open fire upon
informant to cause gun shot injury and also to abuse in caste
name, where occurrence alleged to be arising out of local
dispute and differences.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the nature of injury upon medical examination
found simple in nature, therefore, it can be said that appellant
was not under intention to cause death of the informant/
injured. It is submitted that allegation qua abuse in caste
name prima-facie was not made in public view, therefore
no case is supposed to be made out. In support of his
submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3765 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
710. The appellant claimed clean antecedent.
7. Learned Special P.P. while opposing the prayer of
bail submitted that allegation of firing is specifically available
against this appellant where during medical examination
multiple iron filling wound on right side of shoulder, arm and
chest region found which appears in full corroboration as
raised through FIR.
8. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact, as allegation to cause fire arm injury is
specifically available against appellant, which prima-facie
appears corroborating with injury report of informant,
accordingly, the prayer of bail of appellant stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…