Patna High Court
Vinod MahatoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to a cash bond, sureties and compliance with investigation conditions.
Summary
Vinod Mahato and his wife Sarita Devi applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleges that a 12‑year‑old girl, daughter of an informant, was abused and that the accused assaulted the informant when he inquired about the incident. The petitioners contend that the alleged acts occurred within the private premises of their house, stem from a land dispute, and do not attract the SC/ST Act or the POCSO Act, and that the injuries were minor. The State opposed the bail. The court, noting the private nature of the incident, lack of serious injury, and the dispute background, granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond, sureties and cooperation with the investigation. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act are maintainable in the present facts
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 2(va), 303(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 2(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- POCSO Act
- land dispute
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67259 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2024 Thana- Bijdhari District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Vinod Mahato S/o Rajendra Mahto R/o Village - Rampur Kodar, P.S -
Bijdhari, District - East Champaran
2. Sarita Devi W/o Vinod Mahato R/o Village - Rampur Kodar, P.S - Bijdhari,
District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lalita Devi W/o Awdhesh Ram R/o Village - Rampur Kodar, Ward No. 11,
P.S - Bijdhari, District - East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Special P.P. for the State.
2. Despite issuance of notice and the notice having
been received personally by the Opposite Party No. 2, no one
appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.
3. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 303 (2), 74,
352, 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S and Sections 3(1) (r), (s), 2 (va) of
SC and ST Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, the twelve year old
daughter of the informant was abused making caste based
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67259 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
2/3
remarks by Sarita Devi (Petitioner No. 2) and when the
informant went to enquire about the incident, the accused
persons indulged in a act of assault.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the
outset that even as per the allegations of the F.I.R, the second
part of allegations is said to have taken place at the door of the
house of the petitioner and the first part also does not relate to
any public view, as such, the allegations under the SC/ST Act
would not be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the incident has taken place out of a land
dispute between the parties and no offence under the POCSO
Act is made out in the facts of the case which was subsequently
added. It has also been submitted that the injuries caused to the
informant are simple in nature and the allegations under the
SC/ST Act have been ornamentally added to increase the gravity
of the case.
6. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by
learned Special P.P. for the State.
7.Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering that the case was filed on
account of some dispute between the parties which has not
resulted in any serious consequences or injuries to the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67259 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
3/3
or his family, let the petitioners above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in
connection with anticipatory bail petition no. 2799 of 2025,
arising out of Bijdhari P.S. Case No. 38 of 2024 on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court below where the case is pending subject to the condition
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure/Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 2023, subject to the
conditions that the petitioner would cooperate in the
investigation.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…