Patna High Court
MITHLESH KUMAR @ MITHILESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of kidnapping and therefore granted pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Mithlesh Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a kidnapping case (PS Case No. 92 of 2024) alleging offences under Sections 363, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that he abducted the informant’s daughter with intent to sell her, but the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. denied any physical or sexual assault and indicated she had left voluntarily. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim did not support the prosecution and that the petitioner had been falsely implicated, also noting three prior cases filed by the victim’s parents. The State opposed the bail, but the court found the prosecution’s case weak and concluded that no case was made out for kidnapping. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on pre‑arrest bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence of kidnapping sufficient to deny pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. negates the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior cases affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Settlement Scheme (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- kidnapping
- Indian Penal Code
- insufficient evidence
- victim statement
- Section 164 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11619 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
MITHLESH KUMAR @ MITHILESH KUMAR S/O HARI PRASAD RAI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAHILWARA @ GADHA, P.S.-
RUNNISAIDPUR, PRESENT P.S.- GADHA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. XX W/O YY R/O Gadha, Ward no. 10, P.S.- Gadha, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Narayan
Singh.1, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 363,366A,34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
is said to have kidnapped the daughter of the informant with the
intention of selling her.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11619 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further
submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has denied that the petitioner has
assaulted her physically or sexually. In fact, the victim had
willingly gone to her aunt’s place at Patna being aggrieved by
the settlement of her marriage with another person. In this
regard, the petitioner has given specific information in
paragraph no.14 of the bail petition that earlier also, parents of
the victim have lodged three cases against the petitioner on the
similar allegation. He submitted that the petitioner being
innocent seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the FIR from which it appears that victim has not supported the
prosecution case by not alleging anything against the petitioner,
I am of the opinion that a case is not made out for the alleged
offence of kidnapping.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11619 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned ADJ-VI, Sitamarhi / Concerned Court in
connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found
that the petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what
has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application,
this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…