Dismissed¶22

Mithilesh Kumar @ Gunjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Dec 2025CR. MISC./82700/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Patna High Court; Cr. Misc. No.82700 of 2025; Justice Harish Kumar; 17-12-2025; Gidhaur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025, Jamui; BNS Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 76, 303(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351, 352, 3(5); tangi assault on head; grievous injury; NCCT-Brain communicated fracture left parietal and temporal bone; counter FIR Gidhaur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025; land dispute between agnates; direction to surrender within six weeks; court below to consider bail without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Taking note of the submissions of the respective parties and the specific nature of accusation leading to grievous injury to the informant's husband, this Court did not accede to the prayer for anticipatory bail, which accordingly stands rejected. ¶22

Mithilesh Kumar @ Gunjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82700 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2025 Thana- Gidhaur District- Jamui

¶3

======================================================

¶4

MITHILESH KUMAR @ GUNJAN KUMAR S/O RAJENDRA MANDAL R/o Village- Mahuligarh, P.O- and P.S- Gidhour, Dist- Jamui

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Diwakar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 17-12-2025

¶11

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned Advocate for the informant.

¶13

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gidhaur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 76, 303(2), 118(1) 118(2), 351, 352, 3(5) of the BNS.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is of causing assault over the head of the husband of the informant, namely, Shankar Mandal by means of tangi due to which he sustained serious injury, besides the allegation against other accused persons of causing assault to other family members of the informant.

¶15

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the parties are agnates and they are bickering over the land

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82700 of 2025(2) dt.17-12-2025 2/3

¶17

dispute for a long time. The present case is nothing but the counter blast to Gidhaur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025 registered by the father of the petitioner in which it is specifically alleged that in fact it is the husband of the informant (Shankar Mandal), who had with a tangi in his hand brutally assaulted the petitioner over his head due to which, he also sustained grievous injury. Delay in lodging of the FIR, clearly smacks deliberation and false implication of the petitioner is the contention of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner bears fair antecedent and he undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the court.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Advocates for the State and the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that besides the specific accusation against the petitioner of causing tangi blow, which led to grievous injury, the NCCT-Brain report of the injured, Shankar Mandal clearly reflects that he has sustained communicated fracture of left parietal along with temporal bone and he has been still under treatment and facing threat to his life.

¶19

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the specific nature of accusation leading to grievous injury to

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82700 of 2025(2) dt.17-12-2025 3/3

¶21

the informant’s husband, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for

¶22

anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

¶23

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below, preferably within a period of six weeks, the learned jurisdictional court shall consider his prayer for bail without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

¶24

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶25

Anjani/-

¶26

U T

Mithilesh Kumar @ Gunjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar @ Gunjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Sri Raj Nursing Training Institute Vs The State of Bihar

Kuldip Kumar @ Kuldeep Kumar @ Kuldeep Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

RajKumar Yadav @ RajKumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar