Patna High Court
Haricharan MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of related individuals from Sabalpur village, sought bail fearing arrest in connection with Sonepur Police Station Case No. 336 of 2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code including assault and attempt to murder. They claimed they were falsely implicated due to a land dispute with the informant and argued that the trial court record lacked an injury report. The State opposed the bail application. The High Court examined the seriousness of the charges, the absence of an injury report, and the petitioners' claim of innocence, and concluded that bail could be granted with appropriate safeguards. Accordingly, the court ordered that each petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond and two sureties of the same amount, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order was pronounced by Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the Bihar Penal Code.
- Whether the absence of an injury report and the claim of false implication justify release on bail.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to flee or tamper with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Penal Code
- Section 438
- assault
- land dispute
- false implication
- injury report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1653 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Haricharan Mahto Son of Late Jairam Mahto Resident of Village -Sabalpur
Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
2. Ashok Mahto @ Ashok Kumar son of Haricharan Mahto Resident of Village
-Sabalpur Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
3. Sunil Mahto @ Sunil Kumar son of Haricharan Mahto Resident of Village
-Sabalpur Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
4. Deepak Kumar son of Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Mahto Resident of Village
-Sabalpur Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
5. Lalpari Devi Wife of Haricharan Mahto Resident of Village -Sabalpur
Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
6. Munni Devi @ Munu Devi @ Manni Devi wife of Ashok Mahto Resident of
Village -Sabalpur Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
7. Geeta Devi Wife of Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Mahto Resident of Village
-Sabalpur Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
8. Rubi Devi Wife of Ranglal Kumar Resident of Village -Sabalpur Chaitola
PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
9. Kameshwar Mahto son of Vasudeo Mahto Resident of Village -Sabalpur
Chaitola PS -Sonepur Distt- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghwendra Pratap Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118(2),
303(2), 352, 351(2),351(3)/3(5) of the BNS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1653 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/2
3. It is alleged that the petitioners along with other co-
accused persons, assaulted the informant with lathi, sword, iron
rod and pistol, as a result of which, the informant sustained head
injuries.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been
implicated in this case. He has further submitted that both the
parties are agnates and there is land dispute between them. The
learned trial court has mentioned in its order that no injury
report is annexed with the record.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, let the petitioners, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within four weeks before the learned court below, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned CJM, Saran at Chapra/Concerned Court in
connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Nirmal/-
U T
Checking your session…