Patna High Court
Mahesh MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail.
Summary
Mahesh Mandal appealed against the refusal of bail granted by the ADJ Special Court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with a murder case where the complainant's husband was allegedly shot on Mandal's orders. The prosecution alleged that Mandal ordered the firing that caused the death and that he, along with others, threatened the complainant to withdraw a prior case. The appellant contended that he was only an alleged order‑giver, not the principal assailant, and that the allegations were fabricated. The High Court examined whether the bail refusal was justified given the nature of the accusations and the appellant's custody status. It set aside the lower court’s order, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant, alleged to have given the order for the shooting, is entitled to bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and related statutes.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the lower court erred in refusing bail in view of the appellant's custodial status and the nature of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(2), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 61(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste violence
- murder
- arms act
- criminal procedure
- order-giving liability
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2890 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
Mahesh Mandal S/o- Late Rajpati Mandal Village- Manigram Totaha PS-
Bariarpur, Dist- Munger (wrongly stated in FIR i.e. R/o Village- Maheshpur
Silha P.S.- Mufassil Dist- Munger.)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rani Kumari W/o- Late Rabish @ Rabo Paswan R/o Village- Maniyarchak
Silha P.S.- Mufassil Dist- Munger
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Saurabh, Advocate
For the Complainant : Mr. Rabi Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the Complainant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal
of prayer for bail vide order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the
learned A.D.J. 1st cum Special court of S.C./S.T. (PoA) Act,
Munger in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2),
126(2), 127(2), 103(2), 351(2), 303(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2890 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
21.04.2025 at about 07:45 P.M., the husband of the complainant
Rabish @ Rabo Paswan went with Amit Kumar to the house of
Amresh Poddar on the call of Chotu Paswan where several
accused persons surrounded him and on the order of Mahesh
Mandal, Chotu Mandal fired at him causing his death. It is also
alleged that the accused persons have earlier threatened and
abused him by caste name and has also threatened to withdraw
the earlier case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
allegation against the appellant is only that of order giving. He
is not the main assailant. It has also been submitted that the
appeal of co-accused Manju Devi has been allowed by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench vide Cr. App.(SJ) No. 2954 of 2025.
5. Countering this, learned counsel for the
Complainant has submitted that there is allegation against the
appellant that he has ordered and on his order Chotu has fired at
the husband of the complainant and that there is also allegation
that he along with other accused persons have threatened the
complainant for withdrawing the earlier case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2890 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
that the allegations levelled against the appellant are false and
fabricated. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.04.2025.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by
the learned A.D.J. 1st cum Special court of S.C./S.T. (PoA) Act,
Munger in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025
is hereby set aside and the appellant above-named, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court of A.D.J. 1st cum Special court
of S.C./S.T. (PoA) Act, Munger in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 128 of 2025.
8. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…