Patna High Court

Mithilesh Chauhan @ Mithilesh Mahto @ Mitles MahtoversusThe state of Bihar

Decided: 9 July 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.

Summary

Mithilesh Chauhan sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR dated 17.09.2025 alleging offences under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, 2023, relating to an alleged abduction. The prosecution claimed the petitioner, along with co‑accused, abducted the informant and Govind Paswan, with the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, 2023. The petitioner argued he has a clean antecedent, was not present at the alleged incident, and was falsely implicated due to a labour dispute. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the FIR, multiple witnesses, and the victim’s statement. The Court held that the case did not merit anticipatory bail and refused the petitioner's prayer.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the BNS, 2023.
Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the alleged abduction is substantiated by the FIR and victim’s statement.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Statutes — s. 137(2), 140(3), 183

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
abduction
criminal procedure
Section 137
Section 140
Section 183
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25438 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-532 Year-2025 Thana- BARH District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Mithilesh Chauhan @ Mithilesh Mahto @ Mitles Mahto S/O Bhimal Mahto
                 R/O Village and P.S- Saksohara District Patna Bihar and at present Gali no -
                 13 Basant Vihar P S and District Karnal, Haryana      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The state of Bihar                               .. ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Ms.Anjana, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   09-07-2026                    Heard Ms.Anjana, learned counsel for the petitioner

                   and Ms.Nirmala Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

                   for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 532 of 2025, F.I.R. dated

                   17.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections

                   137(2)/140(3)of the BNS, 2023.

                                3. According to prosecution case, the informant

                   alleged that the petitioner came with other co-accused persons

                   in a Car and took away informant and Govind Paswan in their

                   Car. Informant jumped from the car while Govind was still

                   seated and was taken away in a Car.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated

                   in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25438 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
                                                         2/2




                       and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence

                       as alleged in the FIR and he has been made accused in the

                       present case due to some petty labour contract dispute and

                       petitioner was not present on the date of occurrence.

                                    5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on other other hand,

                       has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                       petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR

                       and a number of witnesses have supported the case of the

                       prosecution and apart from that, the statement of the victim was

                       recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 in which he has

                       stated the name of the petitioner, apart from that, the co-accused

                       persons, namely, Nageshwar Ravidas and Nitish Kumar have

                       been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated

                       23.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.6414 of 2026.

                                    6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this is not a fit case

                       for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with

                       Barh P.S. Case No. 532 of 2025 pending in the court of learned

                       A.C.J.M.-1st, Barh (Patna).

                                    7. Prayer is refused.


                                                           (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.