Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar Mahto @ Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Mahto, applied for bail in connection with several offences under the Bihar Non‑Compulsory Statutes (BNS) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated due to village politics. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co‑accused fired at an informant who was attempting to flee. The petitioner argued that a co‑accused had already been granted bail and therefore he deserved parity. The State opposed bail, highlighting three prior criminal antecedents, including a case for threatening the prosecution, and emphasized the seriousness of the allegations. The High Court, noting the repeated threats to the prosecution and the gravity of the charges, dismissed the bail application and ordered a separate bail‑cancellation proceeding for the co‑accused, as well as a report from the Superintendent of Police on whether Section 111 of the BNS applies.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the charged sections of the BNS and the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents and alleged threats to the prosecution preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused creates a right to parity for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Non‑Compulsory Statutes (BNS) — s. 109(1), 111, 126(2), 249, 3(5), 351(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- threat to prosecution
- Arms Act
- political victimisation
- parity
- bail cancellation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41525 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2025 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Mahto @ Ajay Kumar S/O Jogindra Mahto @ Yogendra Mahto
R/O Village - Batha, P.S- Rosera, District - Samastipur Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nirmala Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Rosera P.S. Case No. 126(2), 249, 109(1), 61(2), 351(2), 3(5) of
the BNS and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that when he was going to Rosera the accused persons
tried to stop his motorcycle and when the informant tried to flee
away, the accused persons have fired upon him.
4. The petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case because of
village politics. He next submits that one co-accused namely
Prabhat Kumar Mahto @ Pintu has been granted bail by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41525 of 2026(3) dt.30-06-2026
2/3
Court below and therefore the petitioner deserves bail on the
ground of parity.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner
has three criminal antecedents also including one case bearing
Rosera P.S. Case No. 93 of 2025 which was registered for
threatening the prosecution. It is also alleged in the FIR that the
prosecution was threatened by the criminals who were in
Howrah Jail and the threat was given to the prosecution for
stopping them to depose in the connected Sessions Trial.
7. Considering the fact that the accused persons are
repeatedly threatening the prosecution for stopping them from
deposing in connected sessions trial, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the bail granted to
the co-accused Prabhat Kumar Mahto @ Pintu vide order dated
9.6.2025 passed in B.P. No. 689 of 2025 deserves to be looked
into by this Court as the allegations are serious in nature.
10. In these circumstances, the office is directed to
register a separate bail cancellation application arising out of
order dated 9.6.2025 passed in B.P. No. 689 of 2025 by District
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41525 of 2026(3) dt.30-06-2026
3/3
and Additional Sessions Judge-1, Rosera, Samastipur and list
the same before the appropriate Bench.
11. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur is
also directed to examine the records of the case and he will file
a report before the next date of hearing as to whether offences
under Section 111 of the BNS is made out against the accused
persons of this Case or not. If the offence under Section 111 of
the BNS is made out against the accused persons of this case
then appropriate steps shall be taken by the Superintendent of
Police, Samastipur in this regard.
12. List this case after two weeks under the heading
“For Orders” for considering the report of the Superintendent of
Police, Samastipur.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Samastipur through FAX for its
compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.