Patna High Court
Mithilesh Kumar @ Akal RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Mithilesh Kumar, has been in custody for two years in connection with a case involving alleged robbery, attempted murder, murder, criminal conspiracy and illegal possession of arms. The prosecution alleges that he, along with co‑accused, looted motorcycles and opened fire, causing the death of an informant. The petitioner contended that the shooting was carried out by another accused and that he deserves bail due to the prolonged pre‑trial detention. The State argued that the petitioner’s criminal record and continued involvement in serious offences demonstrate a clear criminal intent, justifying denial of bail. After considering the submissions and the petitioner’s criminal history, the Court refused bail and directed the trial court to complete the trial within nine months, failing which a report must be filed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences and his prolonged pre‑trial detention
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 307, 393
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- IPC
- Arms Act
- serious offences
- trial delay
- criminal conspiracy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73488 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2023 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran
======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar @ Akal Rai S/o Ramnath Ray R/o Village- Pahleza Shahpur
Diyara, P.S.- Amnaur, District- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 06-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP representing the
State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Amnour P.S. Case No. 297 of 2023 for the offence punishable
under sections 393, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
later on added section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and
section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged on 29.11.2023 by the
informant, Kamlesh Rai.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that while returning from his in-laws village on a motorcycle, he
was chased by a Honda Shine motorcycle and as he tried to save
himself/motorcycle, they opened fire causing injury in his chest.
They later escaped with his motorcycle which led to the F.I.R..
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73488 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has already remained in custody for two years and the trial
conclusion is not in sight. In that background, the petitioner
deserve bail.
5. Learned APP has taken this Court to the case diary
which is available on record to show that though the narration is
before the Police, it shows that how the petitioner with the help
of other accused persons including Sanjit Kumar Rai started
with small criminal act but later made plan to loot the
motorcycles moving on the road and in the process, opened fire
which hit the informant who subsequently succumbed to the
injuries. The worst part is that they even after opening fire did
not stop and on the very next day, wanted to loot another
motorcycle in which one of the accused was also injured and
they have to leave the place.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
even going by the confessional statement, the allegation of
opening fire is on Prabhat Rai and not on this petitioner.
7. Learned APP submits that the aforesaid act of the
petitioner indulging in criminal activity everyday clearly speaks
his criminal intent. The further submission is that the summons
have already been issued and it is likely that the trial will be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73488 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
concluded.
8. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
going through the criminal records of the petitioner as recorded
in paragraph no.3, this Court for the present is not inclined to
extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which is
accordingly rejected.
9. The Trial Court is directed to ensure that the trial is
concluded in next nine months failing which a report be
submitted on the reason for non-conclusion of the trial.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…