Patna High Court
Kari Mahto @ Kari LalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court denied the bail application, stating it was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Summary
Kari Mahto applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated due to a money dispute. The prosecution contended that Mahto discharged a firearm, causing a simple back injury to the informant's father. The petitioner argued that the injury was minor and that the FIR reflected a false implication. The State opposed bail, citing the firearm injury despite its simple nature. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, noting the seriousness of the allegations, and allowed the petitioner to reapply after six months.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner despite charges of attempted murder and firearm injury
- Whether the simple nature of the injury affects the bail decision
- Whether the claim of false implication due to a money dispute warrants bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- false implication
- simple injury
- high court
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76879 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2024 Thana- HATHIDAH District- Patna
======================================================
Kari Mahto @ Kari Lal, S/o Tulsi Mahto, R/o Village- Ganga Prasad Anarpur,
Bind Toli, P.S - Chakiya, District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shamir Mehra, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Hathidah P.S. Case no.9
of 2024 registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 504, 506 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, as a result of firing
resorted to by the petitioner, it is stated that the father of the
informant sustained firearm injury on his back.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of
money dispute between the parties which would be evident from
the contents of the F.I.R. itself. In any case, the injury has been
found to be simple in nature. The petitioner is in custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76879 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/2
29.7.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for
the State stating that the injury report confirms the father of the
informant having sustained firearm injury. However, it is
admitted that the nature of injury has been found to be simple in
nature.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the F.I.R. of having resorted to firing on the father of the
informant together with the corresponding firearm injury having
been found on the injured, the Court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his
prayer for bail after six months.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…