Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar Mahto @ Chandan MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations were serious and the petitioners posed a risk of absconding.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging they assaulted the brother of an informant with knives, leading to his death. They claimed the informant was not an eye-witness and that the case was false, citing a prior case filed by the same informant against them. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the death was admitted, the allegations were serious, and granting bail could enable the petitioners to abscond. The court examined the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the risk of non-appearance. Considering the State's submissions, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioners can be deemed falsely implicated in the FIR.
- Whether there is a risk of the petitioners absconding if bail is granted.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- assault
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17033 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-644 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
1. Chandan Kumar Mahto @ Chandan Mahto Son of Ashok Mahto Resident of
Village -Gheghataganj PS -Chapra Muffasil District -Saran
2. Suraj Kumar Mahto @ Suraj Mahto Son of Ashok Mahto Resident of
Village -Gheghataganj PS -Chapra Muffasil District -Saran
3. Ranjit Kumar Mahto @ Ranjit Kumar Son of Ashok Mahto Resident of
Village -Gheghataganj PS -Chapra Muffasil District -Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anjani Parashar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Chapra Mufassil P.S Case No. 644 of 2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),
118(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and later
on Section 103 BNS has been added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have antecedent of one case instituted by the side of
the informant and the informant alleges that on 3-12-2025 at
9:30 pm, six named accused persons including the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17033 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
came and assaulted his brother Kanahiya by knives about 10
times on different parts of the body and fled, but his brother
somehow reached the house of Narad Singh and thereafter he
was admitted in a hospital from where he was referred to PMCH
and died during the course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that informant is not an eye-
witness to the occurrence nor the allegation even remotely
suggests that the informant based on information given by his
brother instituted the instant FIR. It is also submitted that earlier
Chapra Mufassil P.S Case No. 225 of 2013 was instituted
against the petitioners and others by the side of the informant in
which trial is going on, as such the informant with a view to
coerce the petitioners into submission implicated them in the
instant false case. It is next submitted that deceased was a
dreaded criminal of the locality as has been pleaded at para-8 of
the anticipatory bail application.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that what is not
in dispute rather stands admitted is that brother of the informant
on account of assault died during the course of treatment. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17033 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
next submitted that specific allegation as alleged in the FIR is
that six named accused persons including the petitioners brutally
assaulted his brother Kanahiya by knives causing injury on
different parts of the body. It is further submitted that criminal
cases cut both ways, it is also submitted that it might be a
possibility that since trial was going in Chapra Mufassil P.S
Case No. 225 of 2013, as such to coerce the informant and his
brother into submission, the occurrence was committed. It is
also submitted that investigation of the case is in its nascent
stages and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioners, the petitioners may abscond. Learned APP further
submits that a bald statement at para-8 of the anticipatory bail
application has been made that the deceased was a dreaded
criminal of the locality, but then the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners for reasons best known has not
disclosed the number of cases which were pending against the
deceased. It is also submitted that even a criminal cannot be
assaulted in the manner as alleged in the FIR. It is further
submitted that the brutality of the petitioners was such that it led
to ending the life of the brother of the informant.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17033 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…