Patna High Court

Rooplal MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 4 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Rooplal Mahto, was arrested in connection with a robbery alleged to have occurred on 10 February 2024, for which sections 392, 34 and later 395 of the Indian Penal Code were invoked. He contended that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and that his alleged involvement stemmed solely from a co-accused's confessional statement, with no material recovered from his possession. The petitioner had been in custody since 5 November 2025 and disclosed one prior criminal antecedent. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. Considering the lack of direct evidence, the filing of the charge sheet, and the period of custody, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties of equal amount.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a robbery case under IPC sections 392, 34 and 395, given the claim of false implication and a prior criminal antecedent.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 392, 395

Subjects

bail
robbery
false implication
prior criminal antecedent
Indian Penal Code
Section 392
Section 34
Section 395
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7152 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2024 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Rooplal Mahto S/o Ramchandra Mahto Resident of village - Talimpur
                 (Shyam Chauk, Saleempur), P.S.- Madhuban, Distt.- East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                           2.       The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Patahi

                   P.S. Case No. 23 of 2024 instituted for the offence under

                   Sections 392 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently,

                   Section 395 of the IPC was added.

                           3.       The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

                   10.02.2024, after closing his jewellery shop at Pakpahri market,

                   the informant was intercepted near Padumkar Chimni by three

                   miscreants on a white Apache motorcycle. Two of them, at

                   pistol point, snatched gold and silver ornaments, cash, mobile

                   phones and motorcycle keys, threatened him with death, and

                   fled from the spot.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7152 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            2/3




                  4.      It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner

          that the petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2025. Petitioner

          bears one criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in

          paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

                  5.      It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s

          counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present

          case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner

          has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-

          accused, namely, Rahul Kumar. Nothing has been recovered

          from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner was

          not even put on T.I. Parade to ascertain his complicity in the

          alleged occurrence. Charge sheet has already been submitted in

          this case.

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

          opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                  7.      Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, period of custody of the petitioner and charge sheet

          being submitted, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the

          petitioner.

                  8.      Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing

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

          of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7152 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     below/concerned Court in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No.

                     23 of 2024.



                                                                  (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…