Patna High Court
Kundan Mahto @ Matuki MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail is denied as there is no new ground and the trial is at an advanced stage for serious offences.
Summary
Kundan Mahto was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 27(3) of the Arms Act for a murder case. He has been in judicial custody since 10 September 2023 and filed a second bail application after the first was rejected. The trial court report showed that 12 of 13 charge‑sheet witnesses had been examined and the trial was expected to finish within three months. The petitioner argued that the trial was delayed and he deserved regular bail, while the State relied on a Supreme Court decision (X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC Online SC 3539) that bail is rarely granted once trial of serious offences has commenced. The High Court found no new ground for bail, noted the advanced stage of the trial, and rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within two months and allowing a fresh application if the trial is not concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted at an advanced stage of trial for serious offences such as murder and offences under the Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner has raised any new ground justifying bail after the earlier rejection.
- Whether the delay in trial completion warrants the grant of regular bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- serious offences
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80329 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2023 Thana- DHANKUND District- Banka
======================================================
Kundan Mahto @ Matuki Mahto S/o Late Raj Kishore Mahto R/o Village-
Harinagar, P.S- Goradih, Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap 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 S.T.
No. 54 of 2024, arising out of Dhankund P.S. Case No. 108 of
2023 instituted for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 & 27(3) 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 on merit by this Court vide order
dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42260 of 2024.
4. In compliance of the order dated 21.11.2025, a
report dated 27.11.2025, with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80329 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
appears that twelve (12) out of thirteen (13) charge sheet
witnesses have been examined in this case. It is further reported
that trial is likely to be concluded within a period of three
months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 10.09.2023
without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being
concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner deserves the
privilege of regular bail.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP has further relied upon a decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539
(X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph No.14,
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“14. Ordinarily in
serious offences like rape,
murder, dacoity, etc., once
the trial commences and the
prosecution starts examining
its witnesses, the Court be it
the Trial Court or the High
Court should be loath in
entertaining the bail
application of the accused.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80329 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
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. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of two months, as stated
above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…