Dismissed¶23

Mithilesh Kumar @ Akal Rai v. The State of Bihar

Bail – application rejected

Patna HC6 Feb 2026CR. MISC./73488/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Rajiv Roy, J., 06-02-2026, Crl. Misc. No.73488 of 2025: bail refused to Mithilesh Kumar @ Akal Rai in Amnour P.S. Case No.297/2023, Saran (ss.393, 307, 302, 120(B) IPC; s.27 Arms Act; motorcycle looting, firing on informant Kamlesh Rai). Long incarceration (two years, trial pending) weighed against gravity, criminal antecedents and prosecution account; bail application dismissed; trial court told to finish trial in nine months else file report. Relevant on bail refusal despite prolonged custody where offence is grave and trial nearing conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Considering the submissions of the parties and the criminal records of the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to extend the privilege of bail for the present and rejected the bail application. ¶23

Mithilesh Kumar @ Akal Rai Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73488 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2023 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 06-02-2026

¶12

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶13

petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP representing the State.

¶14

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.

¶15

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..

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73488 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026 2/3

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73488 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026 3/3

¶22

concluded.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶26

vinayak/-

¶27

U T

Mithilesh Kumar @ Akal Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar @ Akal Rai 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

Baban Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Brigunath Tiwari Vs Babulal Tiwari and Ors.

Shyamdeo Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chndradeep Rai @ Chandradip Rai Vs The State of Bihar

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai Vs Pinky Singh and Ors.

Pappu Singh @ Raj Kishore Singh Vs The State of Bihar