Patna High Court
Sunil MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, granting it subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Mahto, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in Bakhri Police Station Case No. 287 of 2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fired a pistol at an informant, assaulted him with the butt of the weapon causing a head injury, and, along with co‑accused, stole the informant’s mobile phone and bicycle. The petitioner contended that the incident never occurred, the injury was simple, and the allegation of firing was unsupported, while also noting his two prior criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioner attempted to kill the informant. After considering the facts, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The order also stipulated bail bond requirements and conditions for cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the allegations of firing a pistol and assault are sufficient to deny bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(6), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352(3), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- criminal antecedent
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81982 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Sunil Mahto, Son of Shiv Dayal Mahto, R/o Karaitar, P.S. - Bakhri, Dist -
Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nakul Kumar Jamuar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Bakhri P.S. Case No. 287 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 126(6), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), 352(3),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that while he was going to his home, the named accused
persons, including the petitioner, stopped him and the petitioner
is said to have fired from his pistol, which did not hit him,
however, he was assaulted by the butt of the said pistol, causing
head injury. It is further alleged that the other co-accused
persons snatched away his mobile and bicycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81982 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no such
incident as alleged has occurred. It has further been submitted
that from perusal of the injury report, which has been referred to
in the impugned order, it would be evident that the injury was
found to be simple in nature and the allegation of firing is also
not supported. It has next been submitted that the petitioner has
two criminal antecedents in which he is on bail in one of the
cases, while in the other case he was not sent up for trial.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated that the petitioner
had tried to kill the informant, as he had fired upon him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Bakhri P.S. Case No. 287 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81982 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close
relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature
of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is
found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…