Patna High Court
Pramod Mahto @ Ram Prabodh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioners subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, Pramod Mahto, Vijay Mahto, Sunita Devi and Deokala Devi, sought pre‑arrest bail in connection with Harlakhi Police Station Case No. 161 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. They argued that the alleged assault on an informant occurred on 03‑06‑2025 but the FIR was lodged only on 16‑06‑2025, showing an unexplained delay, and that the case stemmed from a land dispute with a counter‑case against the informant, suggesting false implication. The State opposed bail, contending the petitioners actively participated in the crime. The court noted the delay, the simple nature of the injury, the petitioners’ clean antecedent and the existence of a counter‑case, and consequently ordered that bail be granted subject to a Rs 5,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. 2023. The order required surrender within four weeks if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the alleged offences under the B.N.S.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the existence of a counter‑case justify bail.
- Whether the petitioners' antecedent and the conditions of Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permit bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 482
- delay in FIR
- land dispute
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83606 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Pramod Mahto @ Ram Prabodh Mahto S/o Late Sakhilal Mahto @ Sarbilal
Mahto R/o Village- Gangaur, PS- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani
2. Vijay Mahto @ Vijay Kumar S/o Sita Ram Mahto R/o Village- Gangaur, PS-
Harlakhi, District- Madhubani
3. Sunita Devi W/o Pramod Mahto @ Ram Prabodh Mahto R/o Village-
Gangaur, PS- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani
4. Deokala Devi W/o Vijay Mahto @ Vijay Kumar R/o Village- Gangaur, PS-
Harlakhi, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109,
352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Allegedly in the afternoon of the fateful day, while
the informant went to her field, in the meanwhile, the petitioners
along with others started abusing and when the protest was
made, all of them armed with lathi and hasua came there and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83606 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/3
assaulted, due to which the informant sustained a cut injury in
her finger.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners referring to
the FIR contended that the alleged occurrence took place on
03.06.2025, bur surprisingly, the present FIR came to be
instituted on 16.06.2025, without there being any explanation
for delay. So far the injury, which is allegedly sustained to the
informant is concerned, there is no discussion in the impugned
order and prima facie it appears to be simple in nature. There is
counter version of the present case being Harlakhi P.S. Case No.
171 of 2025, instituted against the informant and others. The
parties are also bickering over a land dispute and, as such, false
implication of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the
petitioners bear fair antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that all the
petitioners have actively participated in the crime.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the nature of allegation, coupled with the absence of any
discussion of the injury in the impugned order, besides the fair
antecedent of the petitioners as well as the factum of case and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83606 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
3/3
counter case, let the petitioners above named be released on
bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court
below within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Benipatti, Madhubani in connection with
Harlakhi P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors
shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.