Patna High Court
Sunil Mahto @ Apresh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Sunil Mahto, was charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act for allegedly assaulting a wage‑seeker and his mother and stealing jewellery. He contended that the FIR does not specifically allege any assault by him, that the incident occurred inside a private residence and therefore does not fall within the ambit of the SC/ST Act, and that he has a clean criminal record. The appeal was filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the CrPC against the Additional Sessions Judge’s refusal to grant regular bail. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, held that bail could be granted subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several conditions, including cooperation with the trial and verification of antecedents. Consequently, the impugned order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail despite the serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the alleged assault occurring inside a private house falls within the jurisdiction of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged involvement, as alleged in the FIR, justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 303(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 14(A)(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)(wi)
Subjects
- bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- assault
- robbery
- Criminal Procedure Code
- private place
- criminal antecedent verification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1330 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Saharsa
======================================================
Sunil Mahto @ Apresh Mahto S/o Rajendra Mahto R/o vill - Sundarwan,
Kahara Ward no. 10, P.S.- Bangaon, Dist.- Saharsa
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Godho Devi @ Godo Devi @ Goda Devi W/o Ajodhi Sada R/o vill -
Sundarwan, Ward no. 9, P.S.- Mahishi, Dist.- Saharsa
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 02-07-2026 Despite of valid service of notice upon Respondent
No.2, no one appears on behalf of Respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to
make necessary corrections in paragraph no.1 of the memo of
appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Aditya Raj, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Ms. Usha Kumari 1, learned Spl.P.P. for the
State.
4. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 19.03.2026
passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-1st-
cum-Special Judge-SC/ST, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1330 of 2026(5) dt.02-07-2026
2/4
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 04.12.2025
registered under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 109, 74,
303(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and
Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(wi), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Act.
5. According to the prosecution case, the informant
alleged that on 02.12.2025 at about12 noon,when his son went
to the house of Anil Mahto to demand his wages, the appellant
along with other accused persons abused him and denied giving
him any money and tied him to a pillar and mercilessly beat
him. When the informant went to rescue her son, she was also
assaulted. The accused persons snatched her gold earrings worth
of Rs.35,000/-.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that although
the appellant is named in the FIR but from bare perusal of FIR it
appears that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act
against this appellant rather specific allegation of assault is
against co-accused persons, namely, Himanshu, Manu, Avinash
and Vishal. He next submits that it appears from the FIR that the
alleged occurrence took place inside the house of co-accused,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1330 of 2026(5) dt.02-07-2026
3/4
which is not a public place, so no case is made out under SC/ST
Act. He further submits that the police, after investigation,
submitted charge sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in
custody since 09.12.2025.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, let the appellant, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Court of Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge-
SC/ST, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa SC/ST P.S. Case No.
61 of 2025, with other following conditions:-
i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1330 of 2026(5) dt.02-07-2026
4/4
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.