Patna High Court
Mithilesh Singh @ Mithilesh Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner with a bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions.
Summary
Mithilesh Singh applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The FIR alleges that on 21 May 2024, after a political rally, the petitioner shot Guddu Kumar, causing injury, while other accused shot several persons; the informant, who was not an eyewitness, identified the petitioner as the shooter. The petitioner argued he has a clean antecedent, the injury report does not mention a firearm injury, and video footage showed he was not carrying a weapon. The State contended that the medical records indicate a firearm injury and that the petitioner might abscond. The court, after hearing both sides and noting the lack of direct evidence and the petitioner’s cooperation, granted bail on a Rs. 50,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions that bail may be cancelled if the trial is delayed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite serious offences including murder and arms offences
- Whether the informant’s non‑eyewitness testimony is sufficient to deny bail
- Whether the medical reports and video evidence establish the petitioner’s possession of a firearm
- Whether there is a risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the trial
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- non‑eyewitness testimony
- election violence
- firearm injury
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41670 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2024 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran
======================================================
Mithilesh Singh @ Mithilesh Kumar Singh S/o Raj Kumar Singh Resident of
Ward No 42, Nayi Basti Badatelpa, PS-Chhapra Town, District-Sarant at
Chhapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vindhya Keshari Singh, Sr. Adv
Mr.Yashraj Bardhan, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 10-03-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34
and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of
the Arms Act and later on Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act were added.
3. The SHO-cum-Investigating Officer of the case, in
compliance of the order dated 24-2-2026, is present in the
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 20.05.2024 during Lok Sabha Election at Booth
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41670 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
2/6
Nos. 318 and 319, the RJD candidate came when some
miscreants abused and misbehaved with her and also attacked
her for which Chapra P.S. Case No. 342 of 2024 was instituted.
It is next alleged that on account of the said occurrence dated
20.05.2024, 12 named accused persons including the petitioner
on 21.05.2024 along with 40-50 unknown accused came
variously armed and intercepted his son Chandan Ram at 07:00
a.m. at Bhikhari Chauk, further on orders of Chandan Singh,
Manoj and Mintu and Ramakant Singh shot the son of the
informant on his chest, thereafter petitioner shot Guddu Kumar
causing injury on his waist while Ram Pratap Singh shot Manoj
Ram causing injury on his temple and Satya Nand Singh shot
Deepak causing injury on his right rib. It is further alleged that
on alarm, the informant along with others came at the place of
occurrence when the accused persons fled away and the injured
were taken to the hospital where Doctor declared Chandan Rai
dead.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the case was taken up on 24-2-2026, when it was argued
that from perusal of the injury report of Guddu annexed as
Annexure-P/7, i.e., injury report issued by Sadar Hospital,
Saran, it would manifest that the same does not record that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41670 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
3/6
Guddu suffered fire-arm injury as such the SHO-cum-
Investigating Officer was directed to remain physically present
along with the injury report. It is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that specific allegation is alleged against the petitioner
of causing firearm injury to Guddu but then from perusal of the
FIR, it would manifest that informant himself alleges that on
alarm he along with others came at the place of occurrence
when the accused persons fled away, it is thus submitted that
informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but still with
such precision he has alleged who fired at whom and causing
injury where. It is also submitted that it absolutely does not
stand to reason that on what basis the informant alleges that
petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and he fired
causing injury to Guddu, when it is not disclosed in the FIR that
the informant came to know about the presence of the accused
persons including the petitioner by any of the injured or any
eyewitness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that the
occurrence took place at 07:00 a.m. and the FIR came to be
instituted at 08:30 p.m. on the same day i.e. after a delay of
more than twelve hours which amply demonstrates that the FIR
was instituted after due consultation. It is reiterated and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41670 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
4/6
submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and
has been implicated in the instant case with an allegation that he
fired causing injury to Guddu by the informant who is not an
eye-witness to the occurrence. It is also submitted that petitioner
is in custody since 2-5-2025 and charge-sheet has been
submitted.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State based on instruction
opposes the regular bail of the petitioner, but then is not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the injury report issued
by Sadar Hospital, Saran, does not record about fire-arm injury,
but then submits that from perusal of the bed head ticket issued
by the Patna Medical College and Hospital, it would manifest
that the same records – an alleged case of fire-arm injury to
Buttock with regard to Guddu, on which the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even
presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then
whether can it be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner
who fired, when informant himself is not an eye-witness to the
occurrence, as would manifest when the FIR is read in its
entirety.
7. On query of the court from the SHO-cum-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41670 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
5/6
Investigating Officer that as to what transpired during the course
of investigation against the petitioner, on which it is fairly
submitted that during the course of investigation from video
footage it was culled out that petitioner was not carrying any
fire-arm.
8. At this stage, learned APP submits that if privilege
of bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond,
on which the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will co-
operate in the trial to prove his innocence.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the submission made by learned
senior counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty 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 Chhapra Town
P.S. Case No. 346 of 2024.
10. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father, Raj Kumar Singh.
11. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41670 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
6/6
is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
charge is trying to delay the trial in any manner, in both the
conditions, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
12. The personal appearance of the SHO-cum-
Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…