Patna High Court
Mintush Kumar @ Minta @ Mantu Kumar @ MintushversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Regular bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Mintush Kumar, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Fatuha PS Case No.702/2023) involving offences under sections 302, 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. He has five prior criminal cases and has been in custody since 18‑12‑2025. The petitioner argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness and cited earlier grants of anticipatory bail to Ram Suhawan Gop and regular bail to Mithlesh Kumar as precedents. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s criminal antecedents posed a risk of absconding. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant regular bail, noting the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s record, but allowed him to re‑apply after charge‑framing. The bail petition was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to a petitioner charged with murder, attempt to murder and illegal arms offences who has multiple prior criminal cases.
- Whether the risk of absconding justifies denial of bail despite precedents of anticipatory bail to other accused.
- Whether the precedent of granting bail to other accused with cleaner records is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30146 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-702 Year-2023 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Mintush Kumar @ Minta @ Mantu Kumar @ Mintush S/o Munarik Singh
R/o Village- Niyazipur, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Mickey Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Fatuha
P.S. Case No. 702/2023 for the offences punishable under section
302/34/120(B) of the Indian Panal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
has antecedent of five cases and is in custody since 18.12.2025, it is
next submitted that from perusal of allegation as alleged in the FIR, it
would manifest that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence
but alleges that his son was killed by the named accused persons
including the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that no doubt son
of the informant was killed but then allegation of firing is not specific
since informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is also
submitted that this court granted privilege of anticipatory bail to Ram
Suhawan Gop in Cr. Misc. No 43961 of 2024 by order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30146 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
2/2
21.08.2024 for which the learned A.P.P also submits that Ram
Suhawan Gop was a senior citizen and was a person with clean
antecedent but petitioner has antecedent of five cases.
4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that Mithlesh Kumar has approached this court
seeking bail by filling Cr. Misc. No. 79286 of 2025 and the same came
to be allowed by an order dated 25.11.2025 with the condition that
petitioner would be released after framing of charge, if not already
framed. It is also submitted that even Mithlesh Kumar has antecedent
of four cases .
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
regular bail of the petitioner and submits that since petitioner has
antecedent of five cases and if privilege of regular bail is granted to
the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is
not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Therefore, the prayer for
bail of this petitioner is rejected.
7. However petitioner would have at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail after framing of charge, if not already framed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-vikram/
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.