Patna High Court
Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Mithlesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC arising from a family land dispute. The complaint alleged that the petitioner’s wife sold more land than agreed and that the petitioner was implicated despite being in jail and being the complainant’s brother. The petitioner argued that the dispute was civil in nature, a title suit had already determined the complainant’s share, and his wife had been granted bail with an order to pay compensation. The court noted the nature of the family dispute, the pending civil decree, and the fact that the wife’s bail had been granted, and found no reason to deny anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC arising from a family land dispute.
- Whether the existence of a pending civil title suit and a bail order against the petitioner’s wife affect the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are satisfied.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- family dispute
- IPC offences
- Section 438 CrPC
- property fraud
- breach of trust
- civil title suit
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91283 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DANAPUR
District- Patna
======================================================
Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Kumar S/O Late Janak Singh R/O Shahar
Rampur, P.S- Piplama (Naubatpur), Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Akhilesh Kumar S/O Janak Singh R/O Shahar Rampur, P.S- Piplama
(Naubatpur), Distt.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Complaint Case No. 438 (C) of 2022 disclosing
offences under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120(B) of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. A complaint has been filed by opposite party no. 2, stating
therein, that on 16.10.2021, when the complainant came
to his village-Sharampur, the sister-in-law of the
complainant, namely, Ranju Devi, i.e. wife of the
petitioner, demanded 4.125 decimals of land from the
complainant out of the total area of land admeasuring
16.5 decimals for the purpose of marriage of her daughter.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91283 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
It has further been alleged that wife of the petitioner sold
8.25 decimals of land instead of 4.125 decimals, falling in
the share of petitioner and agreed to transfer extra land of
5.25 decimal by way of exchange to compensate the
complainant for extra land which was sold by wife of the
petitioner. The extra land of the petitioner’s share which
was to be transferred in exchange in favour of the
complainant was also sold by the wife of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case
due to family dispute and admittedly the land was sold by
wife of the petitioner, Ranju Devi, for performing
marriage of their daughter while the petitioner was in jail.
He next submits that the petitioner is own brother of
complainant and a title suit, bearing Title Suit No. 159 of
2022, was filed by the complainant claiming his share,
wherein, a decree was passed by Civil Judge, Senior
Division-II, Danapur, declaring the share of complainant.
He further submits that in a bail application of petitioner’s
wife, this Court directed the petitioner’s wife to pay a
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The
bail application of the petitioner’s wife was decided in Cr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91283 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
Misc. No. 584 of 2026.
5. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of
opposite party no. 2.
6. Regards being had to the submissions made on behalf of
the parties and taking into consideration the nature of
dispute between brother and the fact that in a title suit the
share of opposite party no. 2 has been decided and
petitioner’s wife has been granted bail, I am inclined to
grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest
or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No.
438 (C) of 2002, subject to the condition laid down under
Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U T
Checking your session…