Dismissed¶24

Mithilesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Bail – second application

Patna HC6 Feb 2026CR. MISC./91638/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.91638 of 2025; decided 06-02-2026 by Justice Arun Kumar Jha; Mithilesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar; second bail application rejected; offences under Sections 80, 3(5) BNS and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act; Murliganj P.S. Case No. 358 of 2024, District Madhepura; earlier rejection dated 13.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 6163 of 2025; custody since 10.08.2024; trial at Section 313 Cr.P.C. stage; trial expected to conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

No new ground was found to reconsider the prayer for bail; the petitioner's second bail application was rejected. ¶24

Mithilesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91638 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura

¶3

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

¶4

Mithilesh Kumar, S/O Ram Chandra Yadav, R/O Village- Jahagir Tola, Ward No. 15, P.S- Murliganj, Distt.- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Pooja Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 06-02-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶15

In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2025, arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case No. 358 of 2024, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 80, 3(5) of BNS and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was married with the daughter of the informant in the year 2018 and birth of two daughters took place out of this wedlock. Further allegation against the petitioner is that he had been demanding Rs. 1 lakh and on non-fulfillment of demand, his wife was driven out from her matrimonial home. On 03.08.2024, the informant brought her back to her matrimonial home wherein on

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91638 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026 2/3

¶18

04.08.2024 she was assaulted by the petitioner and others and they also assaulted the informant and, thereafter, the petitioner and his family members put a rope in the neck of the daughter of the informant and killed her.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this Court. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6163 of 2025. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2024, but the trial has not been concluded till date and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. The learned counsel further submits that the wife of the petitioner committed suicide and prior to that there was cordial relationship with the petitioner and his deceased wife. There were two children from this wedlock.

¶20

The learned APP vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP submits that no fresh ground has been brought on record for reconsideration of prayer of bail and the period of custody could not be a ground.

¶21

A report dated 15.01.2026 has been received from the learned trial court about the present stage of trial wherein the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91638 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026 3/3

¶23

learned trial court has submitted that the matter has been pending for recording the statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has further submitted that there is every possibility of conclusion of trial within next three months.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties, I do not find any new ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Hence, his prayer for grant of bail is rejected.

¶25

However, the learned trial court is directed to abide by its undertaking and dispose of the matter at the earliest.

¶26

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶27

V.K.Pandey/-

¶28

U T

Mithilesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh 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

Sipahi Mahto @ Anil Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

Ram Naresh Rajpal Vs The State of Bihar through the Additional General of Police Prohibition and Excise Department

Bibha Devi @ Bibha Kumari Vs the Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement Government of India, 1ST Floor

Shyam Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Koushal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar