Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Shankar Mahto @ Shankar KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was denied because the offence of dacoity under Section 395 IPC and the related Arms Act provisions is grave, and the petitioner’s involvement was established.

Summary

The petitioner, Shankar Mahto, sought bail in a case registered as Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 01 of 2023, alleging offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (dacoity) and several provisions of the Arms Act. The trial court had earlier rejected his bail application, and this was the second attempt before the Patna High Court. The prosecution opposed bail, citing material evidence linking the petitioner to the dacoity committed in Munger and the seriousness of the offences. The Court noted that the charge had been framed and, considering the gravity of the crime and the risk to the investigation, was not inclined to grant bail. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application, directed the trial court to expedite the trial, and ordered the Superintendent of Police to ensure witness appearance.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to an accused of dacoity under Section 395 IPC and the cited provisions of the Arms Act
  • Whether the gravity of the offence and the material evidence justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • dacoity
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Arms Act
  • high court
  • criminal procedure
  • gravity of offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53167 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2023 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger
                 ======================================================
                 Shankar Mahto @ Shankar Kumar S/o Late Shivam Mahto R/o Village-
                 Khava (Chandra Tola), P.S.- Maidni Chowki, District- Lakhisarai

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Niranjan Parihar, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   10-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the

                   petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kasim Bazar

                   P.S.Case No. 01 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable

                   under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b) (a) 26

                   (i)(ii), 35 of the Arms Act.

                                3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has

                   been rejected vide order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.

                   No.77545 of 2023, which reads as under:-

                                                            Heard learned counsel for the
                                              petitioner and learned APP for the State.
                                                         2. The petitioner seeks bail in
                                              connection with Kasim Bazar P.S.Case
                                              No.01 of 2023 registered for the offence
                                              under section 395 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53167 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
                                            2/3




                                     Code and section 25 (1-b) a, 26 (i) (ii), 35
                                     of the Arms Act.
                                                3. The petitioner is said to have
                                     committed dacoity in the house of the
                                     informant.
                                                4. The involvement of the
                                     petitioner has been found during
                                     investigation and meterials support that
                                     the petitioner was involved in committing
                                     the dacoity.
                                                5. Learned APP has vehemently
                                     opposed the prayer for bail.
                                                6.     Since it is a dacoity
                                     committed in the town of Munger, this
                                     Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
                                     petitioner for the present.
                                                7. Accordingly, this application
                                     is dismissed.


                            4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          the charge has been framed.

                         5. Considering the gravity of the offence , I am not

          inclined to review my earlier order.

                         6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

                       7. The learned trial court below is directed to expedite

          the trial of the petitioner as early as possible.

                      8. The Superintendent of Police, Munger is directed to

          ensure the appearance of the witnesses in the trial so that the

          trial is not delayed.

                       9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53167 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                      ADJ-IV, Munger and Superintendent of Police, Munger

                      forthwith through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.



                                                 (Sandeep Kumar, J)
N.K/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.