Patna High Court
Ram Pravesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The bail application is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
Summary
Ram Pravesh Mahto was named in an FIR for the murder of a deceased under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) and 27 of the Arms Act. He sought bail, claiming that the actual assailant was Brajesh Kumar and that he was not involved in the killing. The State opposed bail, alleging that Mahto was part of a conspiracy and had helped procure the murder weapon. The court examined the material on record, found that the petitioner appeared to have conspired in the murder, and was not persuaded by the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the court refused bail and dismissed the application, noting that its observations were limited to the bail matter and did not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of murder under the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner was a conspirator in the murder and thus ineligible for bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 27
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- FIR correction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25897 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2025 Thana- Chhaudahi District- Begusarai
======================================================
Ram Pravesh Mahto Son of Late Domi Mahto Resident of Village- Pir Nagar,
P.S.- Chhaurahi, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is permitted to make necessary
correction in the typed copy of the FIR.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Chhaurahi P.S. Case No. 170 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) and 27 of
the Arms Act.
4. The petitioner and others are named in the FIR as
having killed the deceased.
5. The petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
assailant of the deceased is one Brajesh Kumar and not the
petitioner though the petitioner is named in the FIR. He further
submits that during investigation it has come that aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25897 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/2
Brajesh Kumar and one unknown criminal had killed the
deceased.
7. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner
is a part of conspiracy of killing the deceased and for
committing murder, he was also involved in procuring the
murder weapon.
8. From the materials available on record, it appears
that the petitioner has conspired to kill the deceased along with
Brajesh Kumar and others and in furtherance of the conspiracy,
the deceased was killed.
9. Considering the above, I am not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
11. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…