Patna High Court
Kishor MahatoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to stringent conditions under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Mahato family, were charged under Sections 126(2), 115 and 103(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly assaulting the mother of an informant, leading to her death, and for assaulting the informant's sons. The petitioners contended that they were constructing a boundary wall on their own land and that the death was due to a pre‑existing heart condition, as indicated by the post‑mortem report which showed no injuries. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the evidence, the post‑mortem findings, and the provisions of Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and concluded that bail could be granted provided the petitioners surrendered within eight weeks and complied with strict bail conditions. Accordingly, bail was ordered on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions of personal appearance and a close relative as a bailor. The order was pronounced by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite being charged with murder and assault under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the post‑mortem report negates the prosecution's case of homicide.
- Whether Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits the grant of bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1) r/w 3(5), 115, 126(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- assault
- land dispute
- post‑mortem report
- Section 482
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76880 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Kishor Mahato Son of Late Bashdev Mahato @ Late Basa Mahato Resident
of village- Laguni, P.O.- Dhenuki, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra-
841417.
2. Harendra Mahato Son of Late Bashdev Mahto @ Late Basa Mahato
Resident of village- Laguni, P.O.- Dhenuki, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at
Chapra-841417.
3. Rajendra Mahato son of Late Bashdev Mahto @ Late Basa Mahato Resident
of village- Laguni, P.O.- Dhenuki, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra-
841417.
4. Lalo Devi wife of Harendra Mahato Resident of village- Laguni, P.O.-
Dhenuki, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra-841417.
5. Sunita Devi wife of Rajendra Mahato Resident of village- Laguni, P.O.-
Dhenuki, P.S.- Panapur, District- Saran at Chapra-841417.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr.Jeetendra Narayan, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP
For the informant : Mr.Tuhin Shankar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115, 103(1) r/w
3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per F.I.R., on 16.05.2025 at about 11 AM, these
petitioners were constructing boundary wall over the land of
informant and on protest by mother of informant, they abused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76880 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
and assaulted on the head of mother of informant, as a result of
which, she died. It is further alleged that when son of informant
namely Prem Kumar and Raju Kumar came to save her, they
were also assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are quite innocent and have been falsely implicated
due to long admitted land dispute between the parties. Both
parties are agnates and there are series of litigation pending
between them. In fact, petitioners were constructing/repairing
boundary wall over their own land, which was opposed by
informant, due to which, a scuffle took place between the parties
and when mother of informant came to pacify the matter, all of a
sudden, she fell down and became unconscious. The post-
mortem report contradicts the entire prosecution case. As per
post-mortem report, the deceased died “due to cardiopulmonary
arrest due to heart disease” and doctor has not found any
external or internal injury on the person of deceased.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant opposed the bail petition.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the
above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender
within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76880 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned J.M. 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in connection with
Panapur P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, subject to condition as laid
down under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with further conditions:
“(i) One of the bailors shall be close
relative of the petitioners.
(ii) Petitioners shall cooperate in the trial
and shall remain physically present on each
and every date, as fixed by the Court, and on
their absence on two consecutive dates, without
prior permission/sufficient reason, their bail-
bonds shall liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.”
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay
U T
Checking your session…