Patna High Court
Santosh Mahto @ Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court denied regular bail, holding that the circumstances did not warrant its grant.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Mahto, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly looting a motorcycle and mobile phone at gunpoint. The prosecution presented a self‑inculpatory statement of a co‑accused, other incriminating material, and highlighted the petitioner's prior criminal record. The petitioner had been in custody since 18‑11‑2024 and argued that the trial had commenced and charges were framed. The court noted the seriousness of the offence, the existence of substantial evidence, and the petitioner's antecedents, finding no merit to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with a direction that the petitioner may re‑apply if trial delays are caused by the prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of robbery under Section 392 IPC given the seriousness of the offence and the presence of incriminating evidence
- Whether the petitioner's criminal antecedents and self‑inculpatory statements of co‑accused preclude bail
- Whether trial delays attributable to the prosecution justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- criminal antecedent
- trial delay
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72748 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2023 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Santosh Mahto @ Santosh Kumar Son of Ratan Mahto @ Ram Ratan Mahto
R/o Village- Sisawa, Ajagari, P.S.- Banjaria (Banjariya), District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Ranjana Srivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Suman Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for
grant of regular bail in connection Motihari Mufassil P.S. Case
No. 24 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 392 of
the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the
petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 21121 of 2025 which reads as under:-
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No.
24 of 2023 registered for the offence under
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioners have looted motorcycle and mobile
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72748 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
phone of the informant on gun point.
4. The name of the petitioner has come
in the self-inculpatory statement of the co-
accused and there are other materials also
against the petitioner. The petitioner has criminal
antecedent also.
5. The petitioner is in jail since
18.11.2024.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
8. If the trial of the petitioner is
delayed due to the fault of the prosecution side
then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the trial has started and charges have been
framed.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…