Patna High Court

Lal Babu Mahto @ Golu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 30 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the case is not fit for such relief.

Summary

The petitioners, three residents of Madhubani district, were implicated in a case (PS‑62 of 2025) alleging assault, obscene acts, and possession of arms under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act. They sought anticipatory bail, claiming they were falsely implicated, that no specific overt act was alleged against them, and that they had no connection with the seized motorcycles, pistol and knife. The State opposed the bail, noting that a co‑accused had been granted regular bail after charge‑framing. The Court examined the allegations and the petitioners’ criminal antecedents and concluded that the matter was not suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, but directed that if the petitioners surrender within six weeks and apply for regular bail, the application would be considered on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations and their criminal antecedents

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126, 190, 191(2), 324(1), 329(4)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
false implication
high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3709 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
           1.     Lal Babu Mahto @ Golu Mahto S/O Sanjay Mahto R/O Village- Basopatti,
                  P.S- Harlakhi, Distt.- Madhubani.
           2.    Raju Kumar @ Raju Kumar Mahto S/O Mahendra Mahto R/O Village-
                 Bundelkhand, Basopatti, P.S- Basopatti, Distt.- Madhubani.
           3.    Dharmendra Mahto S/O Sato Mahto @ Late Lakshman Mahto R/O Village-
                 Bundelkhand Ward No. 11, P.S- Basopatti, Distt.- Madhubani.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-01-2026                  Heard Mr. Ratnakar Jha, learned counsel for the

                   petitioners and Mrs. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection

                   with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025 instituted for the

                   offences under Sections            191(2), 190, 329(4), 126, 115(2),

                   324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023                     and Sections

                   25(1-b)a of the Arms Act.

                               3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioners

                   along with other co-accused persons abused informant’s brother

                   and disrobed his mother. It is further alleged that there is

                   recovery of two motorcycles from which one country made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3709 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
                                            2/3




          pistol and one knife have been recovered.

                      4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

          the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.

          Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that general and

          omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioners. No

          specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners. Learned

          counsel further submitted that petitioners have not got no

          concern with the seized motorcycles. It has been submitted on

          behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2 has no criminal

          antecedent whereas petitioner nos. 1 and 3 have one criminal

          antecedent each.

                      5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. Learned

          APP further submitted that the co-accused person has been

          granted regular bail after framing of charge by this Court vide

          order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38280 of 2024.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, hence, I

          am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

                       7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

          bail to the petitioners is, hereby, rejected.

                       8. However, if the petitioners surrender before the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3709 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and

                     prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own

                     merit without being prejudiced by this order.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…