Patna High Court
Ashok MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The petition for bail was denied as no fresh ground was shown; trial delay alone is insufficient to merit bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Mahto, was charged with assaulting the father of an informant, resulting in the victim's death. He applied for bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial. The petitioner argued that the trial had been delayed since his custody began on 26‑10‑2024 and that this delay warranted bail, also noting that a co‑accused had been granted bail. The State and the informant opposed, pointing out that another co‑accused had been denied bail and that no new ground beyond trial delay was shown. The court examined the trial record, noting the case was committed for trial under sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., and held that mere delay without fresh grounds does not justify bail. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether delay in the conclusion of trial constitutes a sufficient ground to grant bail in a murder/assault case.
- Whether the bail decisions of co‑accused persons are determinative for the petitioner’s bail application.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the earlier denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- trial delay
- assault
- murder
- criminal procedure
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3811 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2024 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna
======================================================
Ashok Mahto Son of Late Kameshwar Mahto Resident of Village- Milki
(Milkipar), P.S.- Bikram, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
02. This is the second attempt of the petitioner to
seek bail from this Court as earlier his prayer for bail was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 19905 of 2025.
03. As per prosecution case, petitioner and other
co-accused persons assaulted the father of the informant when
he opposed the act of the petitioner in taking away chaff from
the doors of the informant. The assailants gave a chase and
further assaulted the father of the informant when he tried to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3811 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
flee away. The assailants fled away on seeing the informant and
others approaching the place. Father of the informant
succumbed to his injuries while being taken to PMCH, Patna.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has remained in custody since 26.10.2024 and till
date the trial has not proceeded any further. Learned counsel
further submits that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of
trial and delay in concluding the trial is a valid ground for
reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submits that co-accused Naveen Mahto has been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated
24.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41639 of 2025.
05. Learned APP as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel
for the informant submits that similarly situated co-accused
Baban Mahto has been denied bail by a Co-ordinate Bench
earlier vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
14262 of 2025 and subsequently vide order dated 26.02.2026
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 91635 of 2025.
06. A report has been called for from the learned trial
court on previous occasion regarding present stage of trial and it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3811 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
has been submitted by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-VI, Danapur, Patna that the case record has been
committed for trial after cognizance being taken against the
petitioner and others under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1),
3(5) of B.N.S.
07. Except for delay in conclusion of trial, no fresh
ground has been shown by the petitioner for reconsideration of
his prayer for bail. Therefore, finding no new ground, I am not
inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner and hence,
his prayer for bail is rejected.
08. The learned trial court is directed to take steps for
early conclusion of the trial considering the fact that the
petitioner and co-accused are in custody since long.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…