Patna High Court
Dinesh Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar @ Umesh Kumar @ Umesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted and rejected the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Mahto, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging a clean antecedent and false implication by the informant. The FIR alleged that on 17 September 2018 the petitioner, along with others, assaulted the informant and his brother, after which the petitioner allegedly fired at the brother, causing his death. The petitioner contended that another accused, Tripurari, had confessed to firing the fatal shot, rendering the petitioner's continued custody unwarranted. The State opposed bail, arguing that the FIR was lodged by the deceased's brother and that a confession made in police custody is inadmissible and unreliable. After considering the allegations and the nature of the offences, the Court declined to grant bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the offences (murder, conspiracy, illegal arms possession).
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can be relied upon to justify bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication is sufficient to merit release on bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- illegal arms
- confessional statement
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1439 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-501 Year-2018 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Dinesh Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar @ Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Mahto S/o
Sindheshwar Mahto Resident of vill- Amrath, PS- Jamui, Dist- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Sri Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Kumari Anupam, Advocate, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad,
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in
custody since 13.12.2024. It is further submitted that informant
alleges that on 17.09.2018, on two motorcycles, five accused
persons including the petitioner came and on orders of Prakash
and Pappu, they started assaulting the informant and his brother
with slaps and fists, thereafter, three unknown accused also
came whom the informant can identify and they also assaulted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1439 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
by slaps and fists, thereafter, petitioner fired at his brother who
died, on alarm villagers came when accused persons fled away.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that no doubt, it is alleged
that petitioner is the assailant of the deceased but then an
accused, namely, Tripurari was arrested by the police, during the
course of investigation, who in his confessional statement
before the police confessed that it was he who fired causing
firearm injury to the deceased leading to his death. It is, thus,
submitted that when Tripurari has confessed about his
participation in the occurrence, whether it would be prudent for
the Court to keep the petitioner in custody.
5. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the
State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is alleged to be
the assailant of the deceased who was brother of the informant.
It is next submitted that it does not appear probable that a
brother would institute a false FIR alleging that his brother was
killed by a person who was not involved in the occurrence. It is
also submitted that since it has been submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1439 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
Tripurari confessed his participation in the occurrence of firing
leading to death of the deceased, the said submission appears to
be attractive but then is fit to be rejected for the reason that
confessional statement in police custody does not have any
evidentiary value in the eye of law and Tripurari during the
course of trial will resile from his confessional statement but
then the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the confessional
statement of an apprehended accused in police custody.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the fact that FIR was instituted by
the brother of the deceased alleging the petitioner to be the
assailant of the deceased, the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail in connection with S.T. No. 369 of 2025
arising out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 501 of 2018 pending in the
Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III,
Jamui/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…