Patna High Court
Ramdeo MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioners and rejected their application.
Summary
The petitioners, Ramdeo Mahto and Santosh Mahto, applied for anticipatory bail in a case (PS‑Case No.730 of 2021) involving alleged offences under several IPC sections (272, 273, 328, 307, 302, 34, 120B) and the Excise Act (30(a), 30(c), 37(B)). The allegations relate to the recovery of large quantities of liquor, cash and bottles, and the death of a person who consumed spurious liquor, with two others hospitalized. The petitioners contend they were not named in the FIR and that other co‑accused have been granted anticipatory bail, invoking parity. The State opposed, highlighting the petitioners’ prior excise case, the seriousness of the offences, and the risk of absconding. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to extend anticipatory bail, holding that the circumstances did not warrant such relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to persons not originally named in the FIR but later implicated during investigation.
- Whether the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedent and the gravity of the alleged offences preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether parity with other co‑accused who obtained anticipatory bail is a sufficient ground to grant bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(c), 37(B)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 272, 273, 302, 307, 328, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC offences
- Excise Act
- spurious liquor
- death caused by liquor
- prior criminal antecedent
- parity in bail
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12620 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-730 Year-2021 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Ramdeo Mahto Son of Janki Mahto @ Juleshwar Mahto Resident of Village
-Rupauli PS -Jaitpur, Dist- Muzaffarpur
2. Santosh Mahto Son of Ramdeo Mahto Resident of Village -Rupauli PS
-Jaitpur, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in Saraiya (Jayattpur O.P.) P. S. Case No.730 of 2021
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272,
273, 328, 307, 302, 34 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. and Sections
30(a), 30(c), 37(B) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners have antecedent of one case under the
Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 750ml of liquor
along with Rs.48,735/- in cash and empty bottles from shop
of Ram Ekbal Singh. Further, half field bottles of 375ml
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12620 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
whiskey and 10ml in 180ml bottles of whiskey from shop of
Manoj and Anoj Rai. It is next alleged that a person named
Hemant Mishra died after consuming poisonous liquor in
Vishambharpur village and two others are undergoing
treatment in private hospital.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioners are not named in the FIR and their named
transpired during the course of investigation after two years.
It is next submitted that several co-accused have been
granted privilege of anticipatory bail including Lotan Mahto,
who was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court,
as such, based on parity, the learned counsel seeks anticipatory
bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioners. It is submitted that what
distinguishes the case of these petitioners with Lotan Mahto is
that Lotan Mahto was a person with clean antecedent and was a
senior citizen aged about 76 years whereas petitioners have
antecedent of one case under the Excise Act. It is also submitted
that allegation in the FIR cannot be ignored that one person died
on account of consuming spurious liquor and two persons were
under treatment in a hospital. It is further submitted that no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12620 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
doubt, petitioners are not named in the FIR, but then, their name
transpired during the course of investigation. It is further
submitted that merely petitioners are not named in the FIR that
in itself does not absolve the petitioners of the offence
committed when during the course of investigation, their name
transpired and one person died on account of consuming
spurious liquor. It is also submitted that Vijay Kumar @
Bijendra Kumar @ Bijendra Singh had approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.10201 of 2026
and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 15.04.2026.
It is next submitted that investigation in the case is continuing
and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners
may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the
learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. The prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory
bail stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…