Patna High Court

Hare Ram MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to bond and surety conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Hare Ram Mahto, was charged under Sections 304(B) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for a case registered in 2023. He had been in custody since 31‑12‑2023 and had previously been denied regular bail. Counsel argued that six of eight witnesses had been examined and that continued detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed bail. The court, noting the prolonged pre‑trial detention and lack of necessity for punitive incarceration, granted bail on a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions regarding family surety and appearance in court. The order reflects the court’s emphasis on the right to liberty and the principle that bail should not be denied merely because of the seriousness of the charges.

Issues considered

Whether a person charged under Sections 304B and 120B IPC is entitled to regular bail.
Whether continued pre‑trial detention infringes the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 304B

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
Article 21
IPC 304B
IPC 120B
high court
criminal law
right to liberty

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79688 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2023 Thana- TIKAPATTI District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Hare Ram Mahto S/O Late Shivanand Mahto Resident of village - Goriyar
                 Pashicham, P.S- Tikkapatti, District- Purnia

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, 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

                   Tikkapatti P.S. Case No. 130 of 2023 instituted for the offence

                   under Sections 304(B) & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier

                   vide order dated 23-10-2024, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42435 of

                   2024, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court.

                           3.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to the

                   petitioner. It is mainly submitted that six out of eight witnesses

                   have been examined in this case. It has been submitted on behalf

                   of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since

                   31-12-2023. Learned counsel further submits that there is no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79688 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
                                            2/3




          likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.

          Learned counsel goes on to submit that the continued

          incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial

          amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right guaranteed

          under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated

          by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments.

                  4.      Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                  5.      Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, period of custody of the petitioner and taking into

          account the fact that continued detention of the petitioner would

          serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial incarceration,

          which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of the

          Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the

          petitioner.

                  6.      Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing

          bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties

          of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court

          below/concerned Court in connection with Tikkapatti P.S. Case

          No. 130 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:

                  (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the

          family of the petitioner.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79688 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                             (II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date

                     fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two

                     consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the

                     bail bonds of the petitioner.


                                                               (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

Raj Kishore/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…