Patna High Court
Ram Babu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied the petitioner's application for regular bail.
Summary
Ram Babu Mahto was charged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, in a case registered in 2019. He had earlier obtained provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. The State argued that the verification revealed four prior cases, contrary to the single case disclosed in the anticipatory bail application, indicating that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and might abscond if regular bail were granted. The petitioner could not rebut the State's claim about the additional antecedents. After considering the submissions, the Court declined to grant regular bail, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply for bail after the charge is framed.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the undisclosed criminal antecedents revealed after the anticipatory bail order.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27681 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2019 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Ram Babu Mahto S/O Late Raja Mahto R/O Village- Sabbalpur,
Gulamhiyachak, P.S- Nadi, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Manglam
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratanakar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nadi
P.S. Case No.281/2019, registered for the offence punishable
under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned APP at the outset submits that petitioner
had earlier moved before this court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Cr. Misc. No.77375/2025 and the petitioner was granted
the privilege of provisional anticipatory bail by an order dated
26.11.2025 with direction the learned trial court to verify the
criminal antecedent and it appears that after verification it was
found that petitioner had antecedent of four cases when in Cr.
Misc. No.77375/2025, it was recorded that petitioner has
antecedent of one case. It is thus submitted that petitioner at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27681 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/2
time when he sought anticipatory bail application had not
moved this court with clean hands. It is thus submitted that if
privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner may abscond.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned APP that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases but in Cr. Misc.
No.77375/2025, the criminal antecedent was not disclosed.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
7. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…