Patna High Court
Shankar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the petitioner's application for regular bail, upholding the earlier order denying bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Mahto, was arrested on 30 June 2023 in connection with a case registered under Sections 504, 506, 376/34 of the IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He sought regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail application was rejected on 20 November 2024. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had committed rape of a child, a serious offence attracting stringent bail standards. The learned APP and the informant opposed the bail, and the court noted the gravity of the charges and the petitioner’s continued custody. The court found no merit in reviewing its earlier order and dismissed the bail application, indicating that the petitioner may renew the prayer if the trial is unduly delayed. Consequently, the petitioner remains in custody pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused charged with child rape and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- regular bail
- child rape
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- high court
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13246 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Shankar Mahto S/o- Late Sakal Mahto Vill- Madhoul, P.S- Mahua, Dist-
Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Shiva Devi w/o- Late Ramesh Paswan Vill-PO- Madhoul, W. No-10 P.S-
Mahua, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for
grant of regular bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No.
175 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 504, 506,
376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO
Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide
order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61193 of 2024
which reads as under:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Mahua P.S. Case No. 175 of 2023 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 376 / 34 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13246 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
the IPC, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section
3(1)(r)(s)(w), (3)(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner
is accused of committing rape with a child. The petitioner
is in jail custody since 30.06.2023.
4. Learned APP for the State as well as the
informant oppose the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the informant Mr.
Kunwar Ajit Singh gives an undertaking in the Court that
he will co-operate in the trial.
6. Considering the allegation levelled against
the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application stands
dismissed.
8. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the
petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the trial is progressing and two witnesses have
been examined.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…