Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Nag Mani MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The bail application was dismissed as there were no new grounds and the trial was at an advanced stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Nag Mani Mahto, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1‑B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. He has been in judicial custody since April 8, 2024, and previously sought bail, which was denied due to substantial evidence and 33 prior criminal cases. A recent report indicated that the trial is at the prosecution evidence stage, with all charge‑sheet witnesses examined and the case expected to conclude in 3‑4 months. The petitioner argued that his continued detention lacks justification, while the State opposed bail. The court found no new grounds for bail, noted the advanced stage of trial, and consequently rejected the bail application, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted at the prosecution evidence stage of a serious offence involving murder and arms offences.
  • Whether the petitioner’s continued custody is justified in view of the trial’s progress and his criminal antecedents.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • IPC 302
  • murder
  • Arms Act
  • criminal antecedents
  • trial stage
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75992 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- KHODAWANDPUR District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Nag Mani Mahto Son of Late Jay Prakash Mahto @ Late Jay Parkash Mahto
                 Resident of Village - Kumbhi Patolia Dera, Police Station - Cheriya
                 Bariyarpur, District - Begusarai.
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   09-01-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                           2.      The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024 instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read

                   with Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

                           3.      This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.

                   The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail

                   which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated

                   05.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85036 of 2024 on account of

                   being enough material against the petitioner and specifically

                   taking into account the thirty-three (33) criminal antecedents of

                   the petitioner.

                           4.      In compliance of the order dated 11.11.2025, a

                   report dated 18.11.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75992 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it

                       appears that the present case is running for prosecution evidence

                       (documentary) and all the witnesses mentioned in the charge-

                       sheet of the case have been examined. It is further reported that

                       the trial is likely to be concluded within 3-4 months and the case

                       is fixed for evidence.

                               5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                       petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.04.2024

                       without any rhymes or reason.

                               6.      Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                       the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                               7.      There is no new ground to consider the bail petition

                       of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the

                       trial is going on and is at an advance stage.

                                8.     In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the

                       petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to

                       expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously

                       preferably within a period of two months from today.



                                                                   (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.