Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sunil Mahto @ Sunil PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted to the appellants given the seriousness of the alleged double murder and the absence of specific SC/ST allegations.

Summary

The appellants, Sunil Mahto and Mukhiya Mahto, appealed against the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting their bail application in a case involving alleged murder of two persons and alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellants participated in a mob attack that resulted in the deaths of Himanshu Kumar and Anu Kumari, and that they committed offences under the aforementioned statutes. The appellants contended that they were merely members of the mob, faced only general and omnibus allegations, and that no specific SC/ST offence was made out against them. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that there were specific allegations of double murder and that witnesses corroborated the prosecution's case, and also noted a prior bail denial for a co‑accused. Considering the seriousness of the alleged double murder, the lack of specific SC/ST allegations, and the overall gravity of the offences, the Patna High Court declined to grant bail and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

  • Whether the appellants are entitled to bail despite being charged with murder and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, SC/ST Act and Arms Act.
  • Whether specific allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are sufficient to sustain a bail application.
  • Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged double murder justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • double murder
  • SC/ST Act
  • Arms Act
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure
  • privilege of bail
  • caste based offence

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4121 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2025 Thana- DEEPNAGAR District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sunil Mahto @ Sunil Prasad S/o- Fakira Mahto Village- Dumrawan, PS-
                  Deepnagar, District- Nalanda
           2.    Mukhiya Mahto @ Dayanand Kumar S/o- Sunil Mahto @ Sunil Prasad
                 Village- Dumrawan, PS- Deepnagar, District- Nalanda

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sushila Devi W/o- Om Prakash Paswan Village- Dumrawan, Po- Dumrawan
                 PS- Deepnagar, District- Nalanda

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :        Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Usha Kumari 1, SPP
                 For the Informant      :        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   29-01-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned

                   Special Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the

                   informant/Respondent No. 2 and perused the case diary.

                               2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants

                   against the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by learned Additional

                   Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,

                   Biharsharif at Nalanda whereby the prayer for bail of the

                   appellants in connection with Deep Nagar P.S. Case No. 294 of

                   2025 under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 103(1), 61(2)

                   of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 27 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4121 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
                                             2/3




          the Arms Act, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST

          Act and later on Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act

          were added, was rejected.

                       3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the appellants

          along with other co-accused persons attacked and abused the

          informant, and shot dead the deceased persons namely

          Himanshu Kumar and Anu Kumari.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

          appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the

          present case. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits no

          specific allegation has been attributed against the appellants

          rather the the allegation levelled against them is general and

          omnibus in nature. There is no allegation of assault on the

          appellants rather they are only member of the mob. It is next

          submitted that specific allegation of firing is levelled against co-

          accused Kaushal Kumar and Prashant Kumar. Learned counsel

          for the appellants further submits that the appellants have not

          taken the caste name of the informant in public view. Hence, no

          offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against

          them. The appellants have no intention to disgrace the image of

          the informant in public view. Charge-sheet has been submitted

          in this case. The appellants are in custody since 14.07.2025.
           Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4121 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                     Appellant no. 1 has one criminal antecedent whereas appellant

                     no.2 has no criminal antecedent.

                                  5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant

                     have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the

                     appellants and submits that there is specific allegation against

                     the appellants of being involved in the commission of double

                     murder in connivance of other co-accused persons. It is further

                     submitted that on perusal of case diary, it transpires that

                     witnesses have supported the prosecution case in paragraph nos.

                     12, 20, 21, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. Hence, the appellants do not

                     deserve the privilege of bail. Learned Special PP further

                     submitted that prayer for grant of bail of a co-accused person

                     has already been rejected vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed in

                     Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3746 of 2025.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case as also nature and gravity of the offence, this Court

                     is not inclined to grant bail to the appellants at this juncture.

                                  7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.