Patna High Court
Tuntun Mahton @ Tuntun Mahto @ Tun-Tun Mahto @ Tuntun SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellant with specified conditions, setting aside the lower court’s refusal.
Summary
The appellant, Tuntun Mahton, was charged under multiple sections of the Bihar Non‑Specific Act, 2023 and sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant with a deadly weapon and stealing valuables. He appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14(A)(2) against the Special Judge’s refusal to grant regular bail. The appellant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR contained only a vague, omnibus allegation against him and that the injury to the victim was minor. The State opposed bail, contending the appellant’s active participation in the crime and a prior criminal antecedent. The High Court, after considering the submissions, set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) despite the seriousness of the offences alleged.
- Whether the FIR contains a specific charge against the appellant sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the appellant’s prior criminal antecedent justifies refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Non‑Specific Act — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 14(A)(2)
- SC/ST Act
- criminal antecedent
- exclusive special judge
- injury report
- charge sheet
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.165 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2025 Thana- MANSURCHAK District- Begusarai
======================================================
Tuntun Mahton @ Tuntun Mahto @ Tun-Tun Mahto @ Tuntun Singh S/O
Late Natho Mahto R/O Samsa @ Shamsa-1, Ward No. 06, P.S- Mansoorchak
@ Mansur Chak @ Mansurchak, Distt.- Begusarai, Pin- 851125.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rahul Kumar Paswan S/O Parsadi Paswan R/O Village- Purani Chak, Ward
No. 04, P.S- Mansoorchak @ Mansur Chak @ Mansurchak, Distt.-
Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 18-06-2026 Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on
behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
2. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Mr. Sadanand Paswan learned Spl.P.P. for
the State.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 16.12.2025
passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST,
(POA) Act, Begusarai in connection with Manshoorchak @
Mansur Chak @ Mansurchak P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025, F.I.R.
dated 29.10.2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109,
303(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2026(5) dt.18-06-2026
2/4
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, all the accused
persons including this appellant armed with deadly weapon have
brutally assaulted the informant and also snatched gold chain
and cash from the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the appellant has not
committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further
submits that it appears from the FIR that there is no specific
allegation against the appellant rather there is general and
omnibus allegation against him and it is alleged that the
appellant along with other accused persons have assaulted to the
injured person. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a
injury report of the injured person which suggest that the injury
inflicted upon the injured person is simple in nature. He further
submits that the police, after investigation, submitted charge
sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in custody since
26.11.2025.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2026(5) dt.18-06-2026
3/4
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and
submits that the appellant has actively participated in the present
crime in question and apart from that the appellant carries one
criminal antecedent other than the present one.
7. Considering the aforesaid 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 Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act,
Begusarai in connection with Mansoorchak @ Mansur Chak @
Mansurchak P.S. Case No. 111 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
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2026(5) dt.18-06-2026
4/4
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.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.