Patna High Court
Mithilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
Summary
Mithilesh Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging extortion, assault, robbery and related offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Penal Code. He claimed the allegations were false, asserting that a Rs.2,000 transfer was a legitimate business transaction and that the injuries to the informant were minor. He also highlighted a four‑day delay in filing the FIR and argued there was no risk of evidence tampering. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner was named in the FIR and should not be released. The Court, after considering the custody period, the nature of the offences, the delay in FIR, and the petitioner’s antecedent, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial attendance, non‑tampering, and future offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with multiple serious offences including extortion and assault.
- Whether the four‑day delay in lodging the FIR warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses.
- Impact of the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent on the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 110, 115, 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 321, 323, 34, 341, 379, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- extortion
- assault
- IPC
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
- criminal procedure
- delay in FIR
- evidence tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90453 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2025 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar Son of Sri Birendra Yadav Resident of village - Tulapatti,
P.S.- Kishanpur, District – Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amrit Abhijat
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 188/2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115, 110, 303(2), 352, 351(2)
and 3(5) of the B.N.S. corresponding to Sections 308, 379, 341,
321, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and others
are said to have demanded extortion money of Rs. Two lakh. It
is further alleged that the informant has been assaulted by
accused persons for getting the extortion money. It is further
alleged that when the informant was in unconscious condition
Rs. 2,000/- was transferred through the U.P.I. Id of the
informant in favour of the petitioner himself. It is further alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90453 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/4
that accused persons took away informant’s motorcycle and fled
away from the place of occurrence and they also snatched
Rs.17,000/- from the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as
alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the allegation of
getting transferred an amount of Rs.2,000/- through U.P.I. Id of
the informant in favour of the petitioner is totally false and
denied. He further submits that the petitioner has business
transaction with Rambhu Kumar who is associate of the
informant. Rambhu Kumar voluntarily transferred an amount of
Rs.2,000/- on 06.09.2025 at 2:57 pm. The petitioner has
transferred more than Rs. 34,000/- from the period 29.07.2025
to 03.08.2025 to Rambhu Kumar. In this way, there is business
transaction between both sides and the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case. In the light aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner has no intention to
demand a ransom money, rather it was merely a business
transaction between both sides. He further submits that all the
injuries of the informant are simple in nature caused by hard and
blunt substance. There is inordinate delay of four days in
lodging the FIR as occurrence took place on 06.09.2025 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90453 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/4
FIR has been lodged on 10.09.2025 and no plausible
explanation has been given regarding the said delay. The
petitioner is languishing in custody since 10.10.2025 and bears
one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail. He orally
submits that charge sheet has been submitted in this case and
there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution
evidence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner is FIR named accused and he cannot escape from the
allegation made in the FIR.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, argument advanced on behalf of both
sides and also taking into consideration the material available on
record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned C.J.M., Supaul in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case
No. 188/2025, subject to following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother
or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the
affidavit in bail application.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90453 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
4/4
(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain
present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates
without appropriate permission, would be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offences in future, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel his bail bond.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
amitkumar/-
U T
Checking your session…