Patna High Court

Naveen MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Naveen Mahto, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC for an alleged theft offence under Section 379 of the IPC. He requested a correction in the FIR date from 27.08.2020 to 20.02.2020, which the court permitted. The petitioner had two prior cases and was previously taken into custody for a related motorcycle theft, but the stolen vehicle was later recovered from his house and he was released on bail. The State opposed the bail, citing the antecedent cases. The court, after considering the petitioner's willingness to cooperate, lack of flight risk, and the rectified FIR, granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties, with conditions for surrender within six weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438(2) CrPC in a theft case involving prior criminal antecedents
Whether the rectification of the FIR date impacts the grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 379

Subjects

anticipatory bail
theft
Section 379 IPC
Section 438 CrPC
bail conditions
FIR rectification

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80965 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2020 Thana- HATHIDAH District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Naveen Mahto S/o Late Bachhu Mahto R/o - Pali, P.S - Birpur, District -
                 Lakhisarai, Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
                                                   Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.
                                                   Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar, Advocate.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-01-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of the

                   Indian Penal Code.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset

                   seeks permission to make rectification at Para-5 of the

                   anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that inadvertently

                   the date of the FIR is recorded as 27.08.2020, when it ought to

                   have been 20.02.2020.

                                 4. Permission is accorded.

                                 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges

                   that in the night his motorcycle was stolen from his house.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80965 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
                                            2/3




                       6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          stolen motorcycle was recovered from the house of the

          petitioner, for which, Mokama P.S. Case No.33/2020 dated

          03.03.2020 was instituted in which the petitioner was taken in

          custody but subsequently was released on bail. It is further

          submitted that petitioner was already taken in custody when the

          stolen motorcycle was recovered but then petitioner was not

          aware that the aforesaid Mokama P.S. Case was instituted with

          regard of theft of motorcycle alleged in the instant FIR. It is

          next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will

          cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

                       7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       8. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/-

          (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where

          the case is pending/successor court in connection with Hathidah

          P.S. Case No.16/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80965 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                       under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…