Patna High Court
Aman Kumar Mahto @ Aman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions, and the power to cancel the bail if he does not cooperate.
Summary
The petitioner, Aman Kumar Mahto, was implicated in a FIR alleging assault, kidnapping and firing on the informant’s son, invoking offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 191(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner, a 22‑year‑old with a clean record, claimed the allegations were false, that the injuries were minor, and that no firearm evidence was recovered. He sought anticipatory bail, assuring cooperation with the investigation, while the State opposed the relief. The Court examined the seriousness of the charges, the petitioner’s antecedents, and the possibility of non‑cooperation, and decided to grant anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and the condition that the bail may be cancelled if the petitioner fails to cooperate. The father, Arun Mahto, was ordered to act as one of the bailors, and the order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to flee, tamper with evidence or obstruct the investigation.
- Whether the FIR discloses sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 351(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16496 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2025 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Aman Kumar Mahto @ Aman Kumar Son of Arun Mahto Resident of
Village- Lalpur, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Jyoti Prasad, Adv
Mr.Madhav Kumar, Adv,
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Jyoti
Prasad assisted by Mr. Madhav Kumar and learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 191(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he took his son to Rosera bus stand and his son sat
in a bus for going to Samastipur, when petitioner along Raju and
15-20 unknown accused came and forcibly dragged his son out
of the bus and took him to a litchi orchard and tied him to a tree
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16496 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/4
and assaulted by butt of of pistol, fist and belt on his face and
body injuring him, further when he tried to save his son,
petitioner fired at him but he managed to save himself and
thereafter threw his son on road thinking he is dead and
threatened not to institute a case by calling from mobile no.
7261001175.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
reason for the occurrence is alleged in the FIR. It is also
submitted that the FIR gives an impression that the son of the
informant was brutally assaulted, but then the injury suffered by
the son of the informant is simple in nature and the allegation is
not specific. It is further submitted that as far as allegation of
firing is alleged, the same has been alleged in order to give
seriousness to the case when no one was injured by the fire-arm
injury nor any empty cartridge was recovered from the place of
occurrence. It is also submitted that petitioner is a young boy
aged about 22 years and in the nature of allegation, if he is sent
to judicial custody, his entire career would get jeopardized and
chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16496 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/4
criminals. It is further submitted that in the event if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will
not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove
his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Rosera P.S. Case No. 330 of 2025 subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father, Arun Mahto.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner,
despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the
investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16496 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
4/4
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…