Patna High Court

Nandkishore MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner as he is the main assailant in serious offences.

Summary

The petitioner, Nandkishore Mahto, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Ballia P.S. Case No. 28 of 2020) involving alleged shooting of an informant's husband. He faces charges under IPC Sections 302, 307, 120(B) read with Section 34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the charge sheet had not yet been framed, and that he had been in judicial custody since May 2024, seeking bail. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s alleged role as the main assailant and his prior criminal antecedents in fourteen cases. After hearing both sides, the High Court held that, given the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s status as the principal accused, bail could not be granted at this stage, though a fresh application may be filed after six months if the trial remains pending, and directed the trial court to expedite disposal of the case.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused who is alleged to be the main assailant in offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) read with 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Whether the absence of a framed charge sheet and the stage of trial affect the grant of bail.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 307, 34

Subjects

bail
murder
attempt to murder
criminal conspiracy
Arms Act
pre‑trial detention
criminal antecedents
high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48156 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2020 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Nandkishore Mahto Son of Ghogo Mahto @ Ghogal R/o Village - Paharpur,
                 P.S.- Ballia, District - Begusarai

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   19-01-2026                    Heard Mr. Mohit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Ballia P.S. Case No. 28 of 2020/G.R. No. 305 of 2020 registered

                   for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) read

                   with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the

                   Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the

                   petitioner has given a gunshot in the head of the informant’s

                   husband from a blank range. The post mortem report also goes to

                   show that the deceased has head injuries.

                                4. 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. Learned
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48156 of 2025(6) dt.19-01-2026
                                                      2/2




                    counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the stage of

                    trial from the learned trial court was called and from the perusal of

                    the learned trial court’s order, it is clear that the case is fixed on

                    the point of hearing on charge. He also submits that the charge-

                    sheet has not been framed. He further submits that the petitioner is

                    languishing in judicial custody since 06.05.2024.

                                 5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                    for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal

                    antecedent of fourteen cases. It is also stated that the petitioner is

                    the main assailant in this case.

                                 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                    considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the

                    petitioner is the main assailant, this Court is not inclined to

                    enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, however, the petitioner

                    will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if

                    the trial is not concluded.

                                 7. Learned trial court is directed to take every steps so

                    that the case may be disposed of within the said period.

                                 8. Accordingly, the bail petition of the petitioner stands

                    rejected.



                                                   (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…