Patna High Court
Vinay Mahto @ Vinay Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside.
Summary
The appellants, six individuals from Borbara village, appealed against the Special Judge’s order dated 15‑02‑2025 that rejected their application for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They contended that they were falsely implicated, that the FIR was a retaliatory ‘counter‑blast’ arising from prior disputes and multiple criminal cases they had filed against the informant, and that the injuries alleged were minor. The State and the informant opposed the appeal but could not refute the claim of prior litigation. The High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 5,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions under Cr.P.C. s.438(2).
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail application should be granted in view of the alleged offences under IPC and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the FIR constitutes a false or retaliatory complaint affecting the bail decision.
- Whether the existence of prior cases filed by the appellants against the informant influences the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 341, 379, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false FIR
- counter‑complaint
- bail
- criminal appeal
- IPC offences
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1817 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2023 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Vinay Mahto @ Vinay Kumar Mahto S/O Late Baiju Mahto R/O Village-
Borbara, P.S- Karja, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
2. Raushan Kumar S/O Laxman Mahto R/O Village- Borbara, P.S- Karja,
Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
3. Kshitij Kumar @ Kshitij Kumar Mahto S/O Vinay Mahto @ Vinay Kumar
Mahto R/O Village- Borbara, P.S- Karja, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
4. Vimal Kumar S/O Raj Deo Mahto R/O Village- Borbara, P.S- Karja, Distt.-
Muzaffarpur.
5. Ajay Mahto @ Ajay Kumar Mahto R/O Village- Borbara, P.S- Karja, Distt.-
Muzaffarpur.
6. Mintu Mahto S/O Bathu Mahto R/O Village- Borbara, P.S- Karja, Distt.-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shanti Devi W/O Jiyalal Paswan R/O Village- Borbara, P.S- Karja, Distt.-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants, after some
argument, seeks permission to withdraw the instant appeal with
respect to appellant no.3 Kshitij Kumar @ Kshitij Kumar
Mahto.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1817 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, instant appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn with respect to appellant no.3 Kshitij Kumar @
Kshitij Kumar Mahto.
5. The appellants have challenged the order dated
15.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Karja P. S. Case No.185 of
2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby their prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
6. It is next submitted that appellant nos.1 and 2 have
antecedent of two cases, and appellant no.4 has antecedent of
one case and appellant nos.5 and 6 are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 04.06.2023 at 8.00
P.M., Anil made a call and called her son Vishal near a temple
when the informant reached the place of occurrence and Karan
assaulted her by rod causing injury on head, thereafter Ravindra
assaulted by lathi causing injury on ear when Shyam Ji came to
save her accused Kshitij assaulted Shyam Ji by rod causing
injury in his left eye thereafter Raushan, Vinay, Naresh, Vimal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1817 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
and Shyamanand assaulted Sujit by rod causing injury on head
and thereafter all the accused persons also assaulted Sanjit.
Further, Mintu and Ajay by rod and lathi assaulted Nishant and
Rahul and Naresh snatched Rs.5,000/- from Nishant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that earlier Karja P. S. Case No.
133 of 2023 dated 12.04.2023 was instituted by Sanjay alleging
that his daughter was kidnapped by Satnam Paswan on
09.2.2023. It is submitted that after the daughter of Sanjay was
kidnapped by Satnam thereafter a dispute arose in between the
side of the informant and the appellants including Sanjay though
appellants are not related to Sanjay. It is next submitted that
from the side of the appellants Karja P. S. Case No. 184 of 2023
dated 05.06.2023 came to be instituted against the informant
and her side, as such, the instant FIR is a counter-blast. It is next
submitted that after the instant FIR came to be instituted, again
from the side of the appellants Karja P. S. Case No. 201 of 2023
dated 17.06.2023 came to be instituted against the informant
and her side and thereafter Karja P. S. Case No.268 of 2023
dated 08.08.2023 also was instituted against the informant and
her side. It is thus submitted that after the Karja P. S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1817 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
133 of 2023 came to be instituted, thereafter state of litigation
started. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no allegation of
abuse is alleged, but then, the instant FIR is a counter-blast. It is
further submitted that even the injury suffered by the injured has
been opined to be simple in nature which amply demonstrates
that on account of earlier dispute, an altercation took place in
which both sides assaulted each other.
8. The learned Special P.P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
appeal, but then, are not in a position to rebut the submission of
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that
earlier more than three cases were instituted from the side of the
appellants against the informant and her side.
9. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 15.02.2025 is set-aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. The appellants, above-named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1817 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Muzaffarpur in connection with Karja P. S. Case No.185 of
2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…