Patna High Court
Ram Ishwar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Ishwar Mahto, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR alleging offences under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, arising from a land measurement dispute where he was accused of ordering the killing of an informant and his wife. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner participated in assaulting the informant and his spouse, while the petitioner claimed he had a clean antecedent and was falsely implicated, asserting that the FIR lacked specific allegations against him. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, but the court noted the petitioner’s clean record, the existence of a case and counter‑case, and that a co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. Considering these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and stipulated cancellation of bail for non‑compliance with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the offences warrants denial of bail
- Whether the existence of a case and counter‑case and the grant of bail to a co‑accused influence the decision
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- clean antecedent
- case and counter case
- land measurement dispute
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4316 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-591 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
======================================================
Ram Ishwar Mahto S/o Late Heera Mahto R/o Village- Dew Bahuara, P.s.-
Marhaura, Distt.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2026 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner in this application prays for grant of
anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with
Madhaurah P.S.Case no. 591 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, during the course of
land measurement, all the accused persons including this
petitioner have abused and assaulted the informant and his wife
and the petitioner ordered to co-accused Manoj Mahto to kill the
informant and his wife.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4316 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
mplicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that from
perusal of the FIR there is no specific allegation of assault or
overt act attributed to the petitioner. He is only order giver to the
co-accused Manoj Mahto. He further submits that the co-
accused Manoj Mahto has already been granted anticipatory bail
by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.01.2026
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3801 of 2026. There is case and counter
case between the parties.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and that the petitioner has clean antecedent, there is case and
counter case between the parties as well as co-accused has
already been granted anticipatory bail, let the petitioner, above
named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below
within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the
order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned CJM, Saran at Chapra, in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4316 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
with Madhaurah P.S. Case No. 591 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
khushbu/-
U T
Checking your session…