Patna High Court
Mithun Kumar @ Sandeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
Mithun Kumar, a 20‑year‑old with a clean record, applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR alleged that he, along with others, snatched a motorcycle, cash and a mobile, assaulted a co‑villager and fired a pistol. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, arising from a cricket‑related dispute, and that no injuries or cartridges were recovered, making the Arms Act charge untenable. The counsel highlighted the petitioner’s lack of prior offences and argued that bail would not lead to absconding but would aid the investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the lack of concrete evidence, the petitioner’s clean antecedents and the possibility of false implication, ordered that he be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his father, and subject to Section 482(2) conditions. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the offences alleged in the FIR
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence
- Whether the allegations under the Arms Act are substantiated
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39956 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2025 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mithun Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar S/O Ravindra Sahni Resident of Village-
Kamalpura, P.S.- Paroo, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumit Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5)
of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a young
boy aged about 20 years and the informant alleges that on
17.06.2025, he along with his co-villager Raju were coming
back home at 2.00 P.M. by motorcycle when they were
intercepted by five named accused persons including the
petitioner, who snatched the key of the motorcycle along with
Rs.12,000/- and a mobile and assaulted Raju by butt of pistol
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39956 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/3
causing injury. On alarm, villagers gathered when accused fled
leaving one of their motorcycle and even fired.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that petitioner and the informant
are co-villagers, as such, it does not appear probable that
petitioner along with other accused persons would have
intercepted the informant and his friend with an intent to
commit loot. It is next submitted that a dispute had arisen while
playing cricket on account of which, an altercation took place in
which both sides assaulted each other. It is also submitted that
though allegation of firing is alleged and the case has been
instituted under the Arms Act, but then no one was injured nor
any empty cartridges were recovered from the place of
occurrence. It is further submitted that if in the nature of
allegation as alleged in the FIR, the petitioner is sent to judicial
custody, his entire career would get jeopardized and chances are
bright that he may come in contact with hardened criminals. It is
further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39956 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
3/3
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail
on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Paroo P. S. Case
No.319 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further condition that one
of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father, namely,
Ravindra Sahni.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.