Patna High Court
SANNI KUMAR @ SANNI MAHTOversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied for petitioner No. 3 but granted to petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, were accused of uploading objectionable photographs of an informant's daughter on social media, violating several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. They sought anticipatory bail, claiming that only the third petitioner directly uploaded the images while the first two merely assisted and had clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court refused anticipatory bail for petitioner No. 3, finding sufficient evidence of his direct involvement, but granted anticipatory bail to petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, and conditioned on compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order directs that if arrested within eight weeks, the bail must be enlarged on the stipulated terms.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners alleged only to have assisted in the alleged offence without a specific overt act.
- Whether anticipatory bail must be denied to the petitioner who directly uploaded objectionable photographs on social media.
- Whether the settlement by the village Panchayat affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(E)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- social media
- obscene material
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Information Technology Act
- high court
- bail conditions
- village panchayat settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81994 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. SANNI KUMAR @ SANNI MAHTO Son of Ishwar Mahto @ Ram Ishwar
Mahto Resident of Village - Rupas Maruahi, Bind Toli, P.S. - Salimpur,
District - Patna
2. RAJESH MAHTO @ RAJESH KUMAR Son of Nanak Mahto @ Nanhak
Mahto Resident of Village - Rupas Maruahi, Bind Toli, P.S. - Salimpur,
District - Patna
3. MUKESH MAHTO @ MUKESH KUMAR Son of Surendra Mahto
Resident of Village - Rupas Maruahi, Bind Toli, P.S. - Salimpur, District -
Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
State.
2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 74, 352, 351(2),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(E) of the
Information Technology Act.
3. As per prosecution case, these petitioners uploaded
objectionable photographs of the daughter of informant on
social media but the matter was settled, after intervention of
village Panchayat. Again on 14.06.2025, petitioner no. 3
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81994 of 2025(5) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
uploaded objectionable photographs of the daughter of
informant on social media and threatened informant with dire
consequences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that specific accusation is against petitioner no. 3 who
is alleged to have uploaded objectionable photographs of the
victim on social media. So far rest of the petitioners are
concerned, they are only alleged to have assisted petitioner no.
3. There is no allegation of any specific overt act against them.
Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application.
6. In view of the fact that petitioner No. 3 uploaded
objectionable photographs of the daughter of informant on
social media, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No. 3
is refused.
7. However, considering the nature of accusation and
clean antecedent against petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, the anticipatory
bail with regard to petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 is allowed and it is
ordered that the above named petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the event
of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period
of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81994 of 2025(5) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Barh, Patna in connection with Salimpur
P. S. Case No. 164 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.