Patna High Court
Shrawan Mahto @ Shrawan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the appellant as his presence at the scene rendered him liable under the charges.
Summary
The appellant, Shrawan Mahto, was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with the death of the informant's cousin. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, claiming he was falsely implicated and that the FIR specifically alleged the firing was done by another accused, Arvind. The prosecution argued that, even if Mahto did not fire the weapon, his presence encouraged the offence. The Patna High Court, after hearing counsel, declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the appellant’s presence at the scene rendered him liable to the charges. Consequently, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant’s mere presence at the scene of the alleged firing makes him liable for the offence.
- Whether the appellant was falsely implicated in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 3(5)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- arms act
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1577 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2026 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
Shrawan Mahto @ Shrawan Kumar S/o- Rajo Mahto @ Rajeshwar Mahto
R/v- Jalgovind PS- Barh Dist- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raghuvir Paswan S/o- Genauri Paswan R/v- Jalgovind Ps- Barh Dist- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.
Ms. Kahkashan Alam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Binay
Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 17.03.2026 in A.B.P. No. 929 of 2026 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court
(Sadar) Patna in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026
registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, Section
27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1577 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant has antecedent of one case but
then was acquitted and wrongly in the order impugned it has
been recorded that appellant has antecedent of three cases. It is
further submitted that informant alleges that on 03.01.2026,
accused persons including the appellant came to his house and
pressurized his cousin, namely, Sidheshwar to compromise Barh
P.S. Case No. 720 of 2025 and on objection, it is alleged that
Arvind shot the cousin of the informant thrice causing his death
and the accused fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further alleged that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific
allegation of firing is against Arvind.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submit that
appellant may not be the assailant of the deceased but then his
presence at the place of occurrence emboldened Arvind to
commit the occurrence of firing causing death of Sidheshwar.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1577 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to
extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant in
connection with the aforesaid case.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.