Patna High Court
Ritesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
Ritesh Mahto was arrested in a rape case (Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and for allegedly publishing a pornographic video (Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act). He filed a second bail application after an earlier denial, claiming he was falsely implicated due to a family dispute, that the video’s authenticity was unproven, and that forensic and investigative evidence (no spermatozoa, no IP address, no CDR) was lacking. The prosecution argued that the accused had admitted his involvement and identified co‑accused. The trial court had not yet examined any prosecution witnesses, and the case had been pending for over a year. Considering the delay, lack of substantive evidence, and the petitioner’s clean antecedents, the High Court granted bail with strict conditions, emphasizing that the order would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a serious offence of rape and video pornography despite the accused’s alleged admission.
- Whether the absence of forensic evidence, investigative lapses, and delay in filing the FIR justify bail.
- Whether the stage of trial (no prosecution witnesses examined) warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 64
- Information Technology Act — s. 67(A)
Subjects
- rape
- sexual assault
- pornographic video
- Information Technology Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail
- criminal procedure
- forensic evidence
- investigation lapses
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17960 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2024 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
======================================================
Ritesh Mahto, Son of Bhagwan Mahto, R/o Village- Pakaha P.S.- Marhaura
District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Harshvardhan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 15-05-2026 This is second regular bail application on behalf of
petitioner. Earlier, his application for grant of bail was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 9646 of 2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Marhaura P.S. Case No. 493 of 2024 registered
for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 64 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section(s) 67(A) of
the Information Technology Act.
4. The petitioner is alleged to have committed rape
upon the informant and had also recorded a video, which was
deliberately made viral.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17960 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
2/5
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case on account of the fact that there is dispute with regard
to drainage between his family and the family of the informant,
being next door neighbours. It has been submitted that the
petitioner has been made a scapegoat and only to settle personal
scores, he has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further
been submitted that the allegation upon the petitioner that he
had made a video and had also made it viral is not supported by
any evidence, which was collected during the course of
investigation. It has been pointed out that the police has not
collected any IP address or any detail as to the device from
which the said video was made viral and barring a pen drive,
which was provided to the learned Court below, there is nothing
on record to suggest that it was the petitioner who had made the
video viral. It has been vehemently argued that unless the
veracity of the video is tested, the same cannot be relied upon.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also
submitted that the informant/victim had not taken the name of
any other person to be present at the time of occurrence.
However, the police, during course of investigation, recorded a
so-called beyan of the petitioner, wherein he has taken the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17960 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
3/5
names of two persons, namely, Munnu Kumar and Sujit Kumar,
who are said to have recorded the said video.
7. Referring to the medical examination report of
the victim/informant, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the report suggest that no
spermatozoa was seen and there was no evidence of recent
sexual intercourse at the time of the examination. It has also
been argued that the incident is said to have taken place on
19.08.2024, however no report was lodged with the police
immediately after the so-called incident and, ultimately, in a pre-
planned manner a typed application was prepared and the FIR
was finally lodged on 31.08.2024 and no explanation for such
delay has been given in the said application.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
pointed out that the police, during the course of investigation,
had not procured any CDR, which would also throw some light
on the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent
and he is in custody since 01.09.2024.
9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that
during the course of investigation, the petitioner has admitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17960 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
4/5
his involvement in the said crime and has also taken the names
of the other co-accused persons, who had recorded the video of
the said incident and also made it viral.
10. This Court had called for a report vide order
dated 01.05.2026 with regard to the stage of the trial in
compliance of which, the learned Trial Court has submitted a
report dated 07.04.2026, stating that as per the charge-sheet,
there are six witnesses named. However, till date, not a single
prosecution witness has been examined. It has been pointed out
that summons and bailable warrants against the non-official
witnesses have also been issued.
11. Regard being had to the facts and
circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the
trial has yet not progressed in the present case and the petitioner
is in custody since 01.09.2024, let the petitioner, above-named,
be released on bail on his/her furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the
case is pending/successor Court in connection with Marhaura
P.S. Case No. 493 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17960 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
5/5
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his/her bail
bonds.
(v) The petitioner shall refrain from approaching the
victim/informant or her family members till the pendency
of the trial.
(vi) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
12. It is made clear that the observations, if any,
made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
13. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.