Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar @ Golu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar (also known as Golu Mahto), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code relating to the murder of a informant’s son. The FIR named only the co‑accused Krishna Mahto, and the petitioner’s name surfaced later during investigation, with the sole allegation being that Krishna Mahto briefly visited his house. The petitioner argued he had no involvement, clean antecedents, and that no material linked him to the alleged offences, while the State opposed the bail. The Court, noting the lack of substantive evidence against the petitioner, the general nature of the accusation, and his clean record, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000, two sureties, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Security Act. The order stipulated that the bail would be effective if the petitioner is arrested or surrenders within eight weeks from the date of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving alleged murder, concealment of body and conspiracy under IPC Sections 302, 201 and 120B.
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents and lack of direct involvement warrant the exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482(2).
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- conspiracy
- Section 482
- high court
- clean antecedents
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1600 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-427 Year-2023 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sunil Kumar @ Golu Mahto S/o Sitaram Dhangad Resident of Village -
Tikuliya, Ward No-11, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, informant alleged that on
the information that the dead body of his son is lying on a
railway track near Bankat village with signs of injury, he went
there and saw the dead body. It is further alleged that his
neighbour, namely Krishna Mahto, had taken his son away to
Chanpatiya as they had land dispute. Informant has firm belief
that his son has been killed by co-accused Krishna Mahto.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1600 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R..
Name of petitioner transpired in this case during course of
investigation and the only material that has come against this
petitioner is that on the alleged date of occurrence, co-accused
Krishna Mahto visited the house of this petitioner and stayed
there for a few moments. Save and except the same, there is no
other material on record to show the complicity of this petitioner
in the alleged occurrence. Moreover, from bare perusal of the
F.I.R. it is apparent that specific accusation of taking away and
committing murder of son of informant is against co-accused
Krishna Mahto, because it was he who took away son of
informant and thereafter, his dead body was found on the
railway track. It is further submitted that co-accuse Krishna
Mahto has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7157 of 2024. Petitioner
claims clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1600 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
parity, materials available on record and clean antecedents of the
petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Bettiah, West
Champaran in connection with Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 427 of
2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…