Patna High Court
Subhash MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing him to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
Subhash Mahto applied for bail in a criminal case (Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126, 109, 352, 351, 76, 3(5) and later 103 of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that Mahto, together with Chanda Mahto, assaulted an informant causing head injury. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged more than ten months after the alleged incident, the injury report showed no injury, and a co‑accused had already been granted bail, making his case stronger. The State opposed bail, citing two prior criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of medical evidence of injury, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of over ten months between the alleged incident and the filing of the FIR warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence of injury undermines the prosecution’s case and justifies bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126, 3(5), 351, 352, 76
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- injury report
- criminal antecedent
- co‑accused bail
- B.N.S. sections
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4578 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Subhash Mahto, Son of Late Ram Ayodhya Mahto, Resident of Village -
Dhankhariya Ranjeeta, P.S.- Harsidhi, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that due to mistake, he could not add one of the criminal
antecedents. He is directed to add the same during course of the
day.
3. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126, 109,
352, 351, 76 and 3(5) of B.N.S. and later on Section 103 of
B.N.S. was added.
4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that this
petitioner along with Chanda Mahto has assaulted with farsa on
the head of the informant due to which she received bleeding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4578 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
head injury.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the
F.I.R. itself it is clear that the occurrence is of 27.04.2024
whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.02.2025 after more than 10
months. It has also been submitted that the delay in filing the
F.I.R. is not explained by the prosecution. It has further been
submitted that from perusal of the injury report it transpires that
the informant has not received any injury. It has also been
submitted that similarly situated co-accused Chanda Mahto has
been granted bail by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 69887 of
2025. The case of this petitioner stands on better footing.
Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since
31.10.2025.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the application for bail and has submitted
that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4578 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Motihari, East Champaran in connection
with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…