Patna High Court
Mithlesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Mithlesh Yadav applied for regular bail in a case arising from a land dispute, charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that he opened fire and struck the informant with an iron rod, causing a fracture, but the injury report did not corroborate the fracture and a counter‑version indicated injuries to the informant’s wife. The court noted that the firearm allegation was uncorroborated and that the evidence suggested a two‑sided altercation. Considering the lack of substantive proof, the court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, with a disclaimer that the observations were only for the bail application and not on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently substantiates the allegations of firing a weapon and causing a fracture.
- Whether the land‑dispute motive and conflicting injury reports affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- assault
- land dispute
- prima facie
- evidence
- injury report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33504 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2026 Thana- MAGADH UNIVERSITY District- Gaya
======================================================
Mithlesh Yadav S/o Keshar Yadav Resident of Village- Turi Bujurg, P.S.-
Magadh University, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 27-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Magadh University P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, registered under
Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 109, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation is that
six persons surrounded and assaulted the informant. Mithilesh
Yadav, the petitioner, is alleged to have opened fire. The bullet,
however, did not hit the informant. The informant further states
that the petitioner thereafter struck him with an iron rod on his
left hand, resulting in a fracture.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33504 of 2026(3) dt.27-05-2026
2/3
present case. He draws attention to the injury report of
Parmeshwar Prasad which is on record. The said report does not
show any injury on the left hand of the informant. Learned
counsel further submits that there is a counter version in which
the wife of the informant also sustained injuries and that the
cause of the occurrence is attributed to a land dispute between
the parties. Petitioner has been in custody since 12.02.2026.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. This Court has considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the respective parties. The prosecution
allegation, as it stands, has arisen out of a land dispute between
the parties. The injury report of Parmeshwar Prasad, which is on
record, does not corroborate the specific allegation of fracture of
the left hand attributed to the petitioner. The counter version, in
which the wife of the informant is also stated to have sustained
injuries, lends weight to the plea that the occurrence was two-
sided and that the role attributed to the petitioner has been
overstated. As regards the charge under Section 27 of the Arms
Act, the prosecution case itself does not allege that any person
was hit by the bullet. The firearm allegation therefore remains
uncorroborated at this stage. Taking into account the totality of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33504 of 2026(3) dt.27-05-2026
3/3
circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the
petitioner has made out a case for bail. This application is
accordingly allowed.
7. Accordingly, let the petitioner above named be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gaya, or the concerned court below, in connection
with Magadh University P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.