Patna High Court
Vinod Mahto @ Binod Mahto @ Binod KushwahaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the injury report shows grievous harm and the petitioners are directly implicated in the assault.
Summary
The petitioners, Vinod Mahto and Sukat Mahto, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (Majhauliya PS Case No. 312 of 2025) for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 110, 352 and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that Munna Mahto was assaulted with a brick and a danda, and that the petitioners participated in the assault, causing grievous injuries including fractures of the frontal and nasal bones. The prosecution produced the injury report confirming the seriousness of the injuries. The court examined whether the allegations and medical evidence justified granting bail. Finding that the injuries were grievous and the petitioners were directly implicated, the court held that no relief could be granted. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the grievous injuries alleged against them
- Whether the injury report and allegations sufficiently establish the petitioners' participation in the offences under the cited IPC sections
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 115(2), 126(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- grievous injury
- assault
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- injury report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74932 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2025 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Vinod Mahto @ Binod Mahto @ Binod Kushwaha S/O Bahadur Mahto R/O
Village- Bhanachak, P.S- Majhauliya, Distt.- West Champaran.
2. Sukat Mahto @ Sukat Kushwaha S/O Bahadur Mahto R/O Village-
Bhanachak, P.S- Majhauliya, Distt.- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
: Ms. Anjali Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sachida Nand Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioners duly assisted by Ms. Anjali Kumari and
learned APP representing the State as also Mr. Avinal Raj,
learned counsel representing the informant.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 312 of 2025
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 110, 352 and 3(5) lodged on 29.05.2025 by the
informant Ramayan Mahto.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that he was being abused. Upon opposition allegation against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74932 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/2
Munna Mahto of assaulting on the head by Dabila and Brick
whereafter these two petitioners assaulted by Lathi. They also
assaulted his wife, the injured were taken to Majhauliya
Hospital and then GMCH, Bettiah which followed the F.I.R..
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
main allegation is against Munna Mahto of assaulting with
Dabila and Brick, omnibus allegation is against these
petitioners.
5. In this case, the coordinate Bench had called for the
case diary and injury report learned counsel for the informant
has taken this Court to the injury report to show that beside the
injuries on the head, there is fracture in the frontal and nasal
bone and this has to be attributed to these petitioners.
6. Considering the allegation followed by the injury
report that has come against the petitioners, there is fracture on
the nasal bone and the injury has been found to be grievous in
nature, in that background, no relief can be granted to the
petitioners.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…