Patna High Court
Chhotu Mandal @ Ranjit MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied; the petitioners must surrender to the trial court for consideration of their bail applications.
Summary
The petitioners, Chhotu Mandal and Mangal Mandal, sought anticipatory bail in a case (PS No. 266 of 2025) involving the alleged disappearance and death of an informant's son. The FIR, lodged three days after the incident, named other accused but later implicated the petitioners during investigation under Sections 140, 3(5) and 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners argued innocence, lack of naming in the FIR, the victim's alleged unsound mind, a three‑day FIR delay, and clean criminal records, while the State highlighted the recovered body, cause of death as drowning, and supporting post‑mortem findings. The Court, after hearing counsel, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to surrender within six weeks and to have their bail applications heard by the trial court on merits. The order emphasizes that denial of anticipatory bail does not prejudice the trial court's subsequent consideration of surrender‑cum‑bail applications.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Sections 140, 3(5) and 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 given the facts.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the alleged unsound mind of the deceased, and the petitioners' clean antecedents warrant anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioners must surrender to the trial court and can seek bail thereafter despite denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 140, 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- section 140
- section 3(5)
- section 103(1)
- FIR delay
- investigation
- surrender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15792 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Chhotu Mandal @ Ranjit Mandal Son of Dhanraj Mandal Resident of
Village- Bairiya, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
2. Mangal Mandal Son of Chenari Mandal Resident of Village- Bairiya, P.S.-
Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Nathnagar P.S. Case No. 266 of 2025, dated
19.08.2025, instituted under Sections 140 and 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS,
2023”), subsequently, Section 103(1) of the BNS has also been
added, and the matter is pending before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur.
3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged
against two named accused persons other than the present
petitioners, alleging that both the named accused persons came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15792 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
to the informant’s house and called the informant’s son
(deceased) for catching fish. The informant’s son went with
them but did not return home.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel further submits that the petitioners are not named in the
FIR, rather, their names surfaced during investigation. Counsel
further submits that from the contents of the FIR, it becomes
crystal clear that the informant’s son was of unsound mind.
Counsel further submits that there is a delay of three days in
lodging the FIR. Counsel further submits that some of the
accused persons have already been granted regular bail by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.01.2026 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 84532 of 2025. Counsel also submits that the
criminal antecedents of the petitioners are clean.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners and submits that the dead body of the
informant’s son was recovered on 23.08.2025. It transpires from
the postmortem report that the dead body was found in an
advanced stage of decomposition, and further, the doctor has
opined the cause of death as asphyxia and shock due to
antemortem drowning. Counsel further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15792 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
postmortem report of the deceased also fully supports the
prosecution case.
6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is
hereby rejected.
7. It is directed to the petitioners to surrender before
the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. In case
the petitioners surrender within six weeks, the Trial Court is
directed to pass order on their surrender-cum-bail applications
on the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that their
anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court. The Trial Court
shall pass the order on the merits of the case.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…