Patna High Court
Jito Mahato @ Jitan Mahato @ Jitendra MahatoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail and ordered their release on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Jito Mahato, Babita Devi and Dhiraj Mahato, feared arrest in a case (Amhara P.S. No. 88 of 2025) registered under Sections 140(3) and 137(2) of the BNS, where the FIR alleged that a minor girl was abducted and assaulted by members of the Mahato family. The petitioners contended that the alleged victim, now 18, voluntarily married Soni Mahato and that the accusations against them were false and based on general, omnibus allegations. They pleaded for anticipatory bail, asserting a clean antecedent and that they were being wrongly implicated as family members of the accused. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. After hearing both sides, the Court found a prima facie case for anticipatory bail, directing the District Court to release the petitioners on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to verification of any pending criminal antecedent and conditions under Section 482 of the BNS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the present case
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail
- Applicability of Sections 140(3), 137(2), 183 and 482 of the BNS to the bail application
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 137(2), 140(3), 183, 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal procedure
- family members liability
- false implication
- BNS
- Section 140
- Section 137
- Section 183
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3568 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- Amhara District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Jito Mahato @ Jitan Mahato @ Jitendra Mahato S/O Ramji Mahato R/O
Village- Kachhiyana, P.S.- Amhara, Distt.- Lakhisarai
2. Babita Devi W/O Jito Mahato @ Jitan Mahato @ Jitendra Mahato R/O
Village- Kachhiyana, P.S.- Amhara, Distt.- Lakhisarai
3. Dhiraj Mahato @ Dhiraj Kumar S/O Shukdev Mahato R/O Village-
Kachhiyana, P.S.- Amhara, Distt.- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Uday Chand
Prasad, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Amhara P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025 registered under Sections
140(3) and 137(2) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, on
04.09.2025 the informant’s minor daughter went missing from
the market and it is alleged that she was enticed away by one
Soni Mahato (son of petitioner no.1), and upon visiting his
house, the informant was allegedly abused and assaulted by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3568 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
named accused persons/petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the present case. The victim in
her statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has
admitted her age to be 18 years and she has given information
that she willingly married with the Soni Mahato and they are
living together. The petitioners being family members of the
said Soni Mahato have been roped in the present case. A
general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the
petitioners. The petitioners have clean antecedent. On these
grounds, the petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and upon perusal of the allegations made in the
FIR, and considering the fact that the petitioners, being family
members of the said Soni Mahato, have been roped in the
present case with general and omnibus allegations, I am of the
opinion that the petitioners have, prima facie, made out a case
for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. The learned District Court is directed to release the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3568 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
petitioners on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Amhara P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025, subject to
the condition as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioners, as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…