Patna High Court
Suresh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Dashrat Mahto and his brothers Suresh and Sunil, applied for bail in a case arising from a 2014 incident in Jamui where the deceased Niraj Singh was allegedly assaulted, bombed, shot, and robbed by a group of accused including the petitioners. The prosecution, based on the eyewitness testimony of informant Rambalak Singh, charged the petitioners under IPC sections 302, 394, 307, 341, 323, 325, 120(B), Arms Act section 27 and Explosive Substances Act section 3. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated and pointed to the earlier grant of bail to a co‑accused, Saudagar Mahto, in 2015. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences, the petitioners' alleged abscondence and the resultant delay in trial. The court, after considering the facts, concluded that the petitioners did not merit the privilege of bail and rejected the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners charged with murder, attempted murder, and related offences under the IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Explosive Substances Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 307, 323, 325, 341, 394
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- Explosive Substances Act
- criminal conspiracy
- trial delay
- absconding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62473 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2014 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Dashrat Mahto S/o Sahdeo Mahto R/o vill- kakan, P.S.- Jamui, Distt.- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66778 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2014 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Suresh Mahto S/o Late Sahdeo Mahto R/o Village - Kakan, P.S - Jamui,
District - Jamui
2. Sunil Mahto S/o Late Bhuneshwar Mahto R/o Village - Kakan, P.S - Jamui,
District - Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62473 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66778 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 Both these cases arise out of the same case i.e.
Jamui P.S. Case No. 73 of 2014 and accordingly, they are
being heard together and disposed of with this common
order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62473 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections-302, 394, 307, 341,
323, 325, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the
Arms Act as well as Section ¾ of Explosive Substances Act.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that informant
Rambalak Singh has recorded his fardbayan before police at
Sadar Hospital, Jamui that on dated 21.03.2024 at about
05:00 pm when he was waiting for Tempo at Mahisouri
Chowk to go to his home at Kakan, meanwhile Niraj Singh
who happens to be his villager was going with his
motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR46B 3721, then he
asked to give lift him and he seated on the bike as pillion
rider. Al about 06:00 pm when both of them reached near
Kakan Kushwaha Vahwan Mod, accused Jodhi Mahto
assaulted upon the head of Ni-raj Singh by Lathi and the
same struck against Informant's hand and due to that his
hand got fractured. In the meanwhile accused Kamlesh
Mahto, Subhash Kumar @ Vi-rappan, Subhash Mahto @
Yuvraj Mahto hurled two bombs which hit on informant's
left hand and on the head and left shoulder of Niraj Singh
due to which his skull broken out and he died on the spot
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62473 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
and the motorcycle also got damaged. Thereafter accused
persons Dashrath Mahto, Suresh Mahto, Saudagar Mahto
and Sunil Mahto all armed with pistol and fired seven round
upon Niraj Singh. There were 5-6 unknown persons whom
he could not identify. The said accused persons also took
away rupees two lakhs which was kept in Dikki of
motorcycle. Thereafter, in afraid state he went to relative's
of Niraj Singh and informed about the occurrence. He
believes that due to previous enmity the above named
accused persons with a criminal conspiracy killed Niraj
Singh and injured him. On the basis of the aforesaid fact the
present case has been lodged and the investigation is
proceeded.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in this case. Altogether five injuries
were found on the person of the deceased, amongst which,
the injury Nos. 1, 2 & 5 were caused by explosive
substances whereas the injury Nos. 3 & 4 are caused by fire-
arms. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted
that cause of death is the explosive substances. It has further
been submitted that the co-accused Saudagar Mahto has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62473 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court vide
order dated 09-06-2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17397 of
2015.
6. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.
7. The informant is an eye witness. He was
accompanying the deceased. The occurrence has taken place
before his eyes and these petitioners also fired upon the
deceased. The case of the petitioners cannot be equated
with that of co-accused Saudagar Mahto as because
Saudagar Mahto was granted bail in the year, 2015 whereas
the petitioners remained absconding and due to their non-
appearance, the progress of the trial suffered for a
considerable long duration.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the petitioners does not deserve the privilege
of bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…