Patna High Court
Mithun Yadav @ Prince Kumar @ Prince @ Prince KrversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted, subject to strict conditions, as continued pre‑trial detention would contravene Article 21.
Summary
Mithun Yadav, accused of offences under Sections 310(4), 310(5) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑Ba), 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act, sought regular bail for two pending session trials. He had been in custody since 10 March 2025, with 19 prior criminal cases, and only two of nine witnesses had been examined. The High Court noted that the trial was far from conclusion and that continued pre‑trial detention would violate Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty. While the State opposed bail, the Court found that further incarceration would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on a Rs.15,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, no further criminal activity, and permission to leave the jurisdiction.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite serious charges and prior denial, considering the delay in trial and the right to liberty under Article 21.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑Ba), 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111, 310(4), 310(5)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedents
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30961 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-768 Year-2024 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Mithun Yadav @ Prince Kumar @ Prince @ Prince Kr S/o Late Gopal Yadav
Resident Of Village- Badi Mirzapur, Ps - Kasim Bazar, Dist- MUNGER,
Presently residing at vill - Badi Jankipur, P.S.- Amarpur, Dist.- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Session Trial Case No. 62 of 2025 and Session Trial No. 42 of
2026 arising out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 768 of 2024
instituted for the offence under Sections 310(4), 310(5) & 111 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26,
35 & 27 of the Arms Act. Earlier vide order dated 05.08.2025,
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35334 of 2025, regular bail of the
petitioner was rejected by this Court with a liberty to renew the
prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30961 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
framed and till date, two (2) out of nine (9) witnesses have been
examined. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2025, having nineteen
(19) criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submits that
there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near
future. Learned counsel goes on to submit that the continued
incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial
amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated
by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, period of custody of the petitioner and taking into
account the fact that continued detention of the petitioner would
serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial incarceration,
which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
6. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30961 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
below/concerned Court in connection with Session Trial Case
No. 62 of 2025 and Session Trial No. 42 of 2026 arising out of
Amarpur P.S. Case No. 768 of 2024, subject to the following
conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses of the case by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses,
during the investigation or trial, in that case, prosecution will be
at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(IV) If the petitioner is found indulged in any criminal
activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail,
the prosecution will be at liberty to file an appropriate
application before the court below for cancellation of his bail.
(V) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court below without its prior permission.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.