Patna High Court
Mithlesh Giri @ Mithilesh Kumar Giri @ Mithlesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioners have clean antecedents, the FIR was unduly delayed, the victim’s statement lacks confidence, and there is no likelihood of them evading investigation.
Summary
The petitioners, Mithlesh Giri and Jogendra Giri, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging kidnapping for marriage. The FIR was lodged on 3 August 2025, more than 38 days after the alleged incident on 25 June 2025, and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS was found to be inconsistent and possibly made under parental pressure. The petitioners argued that they have clean antecedents, were falsely implicated, and would cooperate with the investigation. The court held that the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of confidence in the victim’s statement weakened the prosecution’s case, and there was no indication that the petitioners would abscond or tamper with evidence. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 each, two sureties, and the condition that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioners fail to cooperate. The order also directed that a copy be sent to the concerned police station.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged kidnapping and offences under the POCSO Act
- Whether the 38‑day delay in filing the FIR affects the merits of the bail application
- Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS is reliable
- Whether the petitioners pose a risk of absconding or interfering with the investigation
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- victim statement credibility
- section 183 BNSS
- section 482(2) conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12550 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Mithlesh Giri @ Mithilesh Kumar Giri @ Mithlesh Kumar S/o Late Dayal
Giri @ Late Devi Dayal Giri R/o Village - Mushehari Tola, P.S - Barharia @
Barhariya, District - Siwan
2. Jogendra Giri @ Yogendra Giri @ Yogendra @ Jogindra Giri S/o Late Dayal
Giri @ Late Devi Dayal Giri R/o Village - Mushehari Tola, P.S - Barharia @
Barhariya, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shree X S/o Late Saroj Singh R/o Village - Mushehari Tola, P.S - Barharia
@ Barhariya, District - Siwan
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and
87 of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 25.06.2025 at 04:00 PM, her sister had gone to
the market to purchase some articles, but did not return, on
inquiry, it transpired that Mithlesh and Shailesh (petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12550 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/5
herein) kidnapped her for the purposes of marrying, accordingly,
she went to their house where Jogindar abused and ousted her
from the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the date
of occurrence is 25.06.2025 and the FIR came to be instituted
on 03.08.2025 i.e. after a delay of more than 38 days which
casts an aspersion on the case of prosecution. It is also
submitted that victim came back and her statement was recorded
under Section 183 BNSS wherein she has supported the case of
the prosecution, but then from perusal of her statement recorded
under Section 183 BNSS, it would manifest that the same does
not inspire confidence. It is further submitted that victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has stated that she
had gone to the market on 25.06.2025 where she met Mithlesh
who asked her to have Pakoda and Shailesh was also there,
further after having Pakoda, she felt unconscious and thereafter
when she regained consciousness, she found herself in a village
where she met a boy and asked him to give his mobile and
accordingly from the said mobile, she called her brother and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12550 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/5
thereafter a person came who snatched her mobile, but then she
met another person and requested to somehow take her out of
the village and the said person dropped her at Hardoi station
from where she came to Siwan and then came back home, the
victim also stated that when she was fully conscious, the
petitioners did not do any wrong, but is not aware what
happened after she became unconscious.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners next submits that the statement of the victim gives an
impression that the same has been recorded under parental
pressure. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable
that had petitioners been involved in the occurrence of making
her unconscious and taking her to a village then they would
have left her all alone to meet a boy and a person who took her
back to Hardoi station. It is reiterated and submitted that the
statement of the victim is not inspiring confidence. It is also
submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate
in the investigation to prove their innocence.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12550 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
4/5
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with Barharia
@ Barhariya P.S. Case No. 398 of 2025 subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners despite
giving assurance to this Court are not co-operating in the
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
10. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
11. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that brother of the present
victim again instituted Barhariya P.S. Case No. 129 of 2026
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12550 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
5/5
dated 19.03.2026 alleging that petitioners again kidnapped the
victim of the instant FIR.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…