Patna High Court
Ganesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioners were under an intention to cause death and therefore denied anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Ganesh Mahto and Rajesh Mahto, were named in an FIR for assaulting an informant during a land dispute, allegedly causing grievous injuries with intent to cause death. They sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the incident was a mutual fight and that the injuries alone did not prove intent to kill, citing a Supreme Court decision (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh). The prosecution, aided by counsel for the informant, contended that the repeated assaults on vital parts of the body demonstrated a clear intention to cause death. The court examined the nature of the weapons, manner of assault, and pre‑ and post‑conduct, finding that the facts satisfied the criteria under Section 109(1) of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes. Consequently, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts disclose an intention to cause death sufficient to deny anticipatory bail under Section 109(1) of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes.
- Whether the presence of mutual injuries in a land dispute negates the requisite intent for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 117(2) and 3(5).
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes — s. 109, 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- intention to cause death
- grievous injuries
- land dispute
- criminal law
- Section 109
- Section 352
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36809 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2026 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Ganesh Mahto Son of Saryug Mahto Resident of village- Kharidi, Ward no
16, PS-Matihani, Dist -Begusarai
2. Rajesh Mahto @ Rajeshwar Son of Saryug Mahto Resident of village-
Kharidi, Ward no 16, PS-Matihani, Dist -Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nakul Kumar Jamuar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Matihani P.S. Case
No. 44 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 117(2) and 3(5) of
the BNS.
3. The allegation against petitioners is to assault
informant and others by using lathi, rod etc. causing head and
bodily injuries, where injury as caused by petitioner was alleged
to made with an intention to cause death of injured persons,
where occurrence arises out of land dispute.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that present occurrence appears free
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36809 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
fight in nature, where both parties received injuries, therefore, it
cannot be said safely that petitioners were not under intention to
cause death of the injured/informant. It is also submitted that for
the same set of occurrence petitioner’s side also lodged a case,
which has been registered as Matihani P.S. Case No. 43 of 2026.
It is conceded that injuries are grievous in nature, but merely on
said ground it cannot be said that petitioners were under
intention to cause death as there are several factors required to
make out a prima-facie case under Section 109(1) of the BNSS
like, nature of weapons, manner of assault, pre and post conduct
of accused during the occurrence etc. In support of his
submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. Shamsher Singh, [2025 SCC OnLine 807].
While concluding argument, it is submitted that petitioner no. 2 is
a man of clean antecedent and petitioner no. 1 found involved in
one more case, where he is on bail.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for
the informant while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that
petitioner during the occurrence made repeated assaults upon
informant/injured causing multiple grievous injuries upon vital
part of the body as it appears from the impugned order itself,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36809 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
which is sufficient to suggest that petitioners were “under
intention to cause death” of the informant/injured.
6. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submission
and by taking note of fact as petitioners specifically alleged to
cause multiple grievous injuries on the vital part of the body of
informant during the occurrence, accordingly prayer of
anticipatory bail of petitioners stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.