Patna High Court

Pappu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The court held that, given the lack of specific evidence against the petitioner, his clean antecedent and the relatively short custody period, bail should be granted.

Summary

Pappu Mahto was arrested in connection with a robbery and assault allegedly committed on 30 August 2025, for which he faces several offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no specific overt act was proved against him, and that the injuries reported were simple and uncorroborated. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged acts, his clean criminal record, and the period of custody since 22 October 2025. Concluding that these factors outweighed the prosecution’s case, the court granted bail on condition of a Rs.15,000 bond and two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the gravity of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Whether the absence of a specific overt act and lack of corroborative injury report justify granting bail
Whether the period of custody and the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrant release on bail

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 191(1), 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352

Subjects

bail
robbery
assault
deadly weapons
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
evidence
custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5810 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2025 Thana- PURUSHOTTAMPUR District- West
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Pappu Mahto son of Dinanath Mahto Resident Of Village- Madhuri Ps-
                 Purushottampur District- West Champaran
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   28-01-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2025 instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 109(1), 115(2), 303(2),

                   352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.08.2025, the

                   petitioner Pappu Mahto along with named and unknown

                   accused, armed with deadly weapons, intercepted the informant

                   and his family, robbed ₹1,50,000/- at gunpoint, and assaulted

                   the informant, his father, and brother, causing bleeding injuries

                   and fracture.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

                   Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5810 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No

                     specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. Learned

                     counsel further submitted that as per the injury report as

                     discussed in the impugned order, no corroborative injury report

                     has been sustained by the injured. He further submitted that the

                     injuries are simple in nature. It has been submitted on behalf of

                     the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 22.10.2025

                     and has no criminal antecedent.

                                 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case as also the period of custody undergone by the

                     petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing

                     bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two

                     sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court

                     below/concerned Court in connection with Purushottampur P.S.

                     Case No. 110 of 2025.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…