Patna High Court
Bittu Mishra @ Nitesh Kumar MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the petitioner is an accused in a serious rape case and is named in the FIR.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered an anticipatory bail petition filed by Bittu Mishra, who was accused of rape under sections of the BNS Act and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The prosecution’s case is based on the FIR in which the informant identified the petitioner as one of four persons who raped her after being lured to Samastipur. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging that his name appeared only in a co‑accused’s confessional statement and that he was being framed due to personal enmity. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences and the petitioner’s prior criminal record. After reviewing the FIR and the allegations, the Court found that the petitioner was indeed named in the FIR and that the nature of the offence warranted denial of anticipatory bail, leading to the rejection of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged rape offences.
- Whether the petitioner’s inclusion in the FIR and his prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 143(2), 3(5), 351(2), 70(1)
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — s. 3(2), 3(k), 4, 5
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- immoral traffic
- criminal procedure
- bail
- sexual assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35754 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2026 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
Bittu Mishra @ Nitesh Kumar Mishra Son of Umesh Mishra Resident of
Village - Mishra Tola, Ward No. - 9, P.S. - Rosera, District - Samastipur
(Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2026, for allegedly
having committed offence under Sections 70(1), 143(2), 351(2)
and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(2), (k), 4 & 5 of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been
lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the
informant to the effect that she had a talk with one Dilip Kumar
through whatsapp call and thereupon, on the request made by
the said Dilip Kumar, she came to Samastipur. When the
informant reached at Samastipur Railway Station on 19.03.2026,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35754 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
2/4
she called Dilip Kumar. Thereupon, the said Dilip Kumar called
his friend, namely, Bauna @ Suresh Giri and he came there to
receive her and took her in a toto rickshaw from Samastipur
Railway Station to Babu Saheb Mutton House Hotel of
Yashwant Singh. At the hotel, the co-accused Dilip Kumar told
her to indulge in immoral trafficking and on 23.03.2026 at about
3:30 hours, four persons, including the petitioner came there by
giving reference of said Dilip Kumar and committed rape on her
and thereafter, all the accused persons, including the petitioner
took her to another hotel in a Scorpio vehicle. They again
committed rape on her and thereafter, they left her and fled
away. The informant called Dilip Kumar, who came and took
her to Hotel Yashwant. She was offered money by Dilip Kumar
and after that she was dropped to Samastipur Railway Station by
the said Dilip Kumar and his friend Bauna.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and has no committed any offence.
The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the
confessional statement made by the co-accused Dilip Kumar.
The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by Dilip
Kumar, due to previous enmity. The informant on her own came
from Kolkata to Samastipur and the petitioner is not involved in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35754 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
3/4
any immoral traffic act. The allegation of rape against the
petitioner is a concocted story. He further submits that the
petitioner is an accused in four other cases, however, the same
are of different nature.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner
committed rape upon the informant and then, took her to another
place and there also committed rape with some others. The
petitioner along with others fled away, leaving her at the same
place. The petitioner has got four criminal antecedents and if he
will be released on bail, he will indulge in illegal activities.
6. Having heard the rival submission and after going
through the records, it appears that the petitioner along with
three others committed rape upon the informant and he has been
named as an accused by the informant. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner as stated in paragraph no. 7 of
the anticipatory bail petition, to the effect that the name of the
petitioner transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused
Dilip Kumar is entirely incorrect, since in the First Information
Report itself, the informant has named the petitioner. The
petitioner is an accused in four other cases. Considering the fact
that the petitioner committed rape upon the informant, this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35754 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
4/4
is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
petition of the petitioner is rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Rakesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.