Patna High Court
Dareshi MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail as there is no specific overt act against them and the delayed FIR raises doubts about the prosecution’s case, warranting bail under Section 482(2).
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Mahto family, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a kidnapping case under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that on 12 May 2025 the accused kidnapped the informant’s daughter, but the petitioners claim innocence and argue they were falsely implicated because of their relation to co‑accused Saurav Kumar. The FIR was lodged after a 28‑day delay, and no specific overt act was alleged against the petitioners. The State and the informant opposed bail. Considering the nature of the accusation, the delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of concrete evidence, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to surrender within eight weeks and furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a kidnapping case under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the 28‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 3(5), 96
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 482
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8457 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2025 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Dareshi Mahto S/O Late Etwari Mahto Resident of Village- Usraha, P.S-
Beldaur, District- Khagaria.
2. Divakar Kumar S/O Dareshi Mahto Resident of Village- Usraha, P.S-
Beldaur, District- Khagaria.
3. Nitish Kumar S/O Dareshi Mahto Resident of Village- Usraha, P.S- Beldaur,
District- Khagaria.
4. Raushan Mahtoi @ Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Mahto S/O Late Kishori
Mahto Resident of Village- Usraha, P.S- Beldaur, District- Khagaria. At
present R/O Gangaur, P.S- Gangaur, Distt.- Khagaria.
5. Sushant Kumar @ Sheru S/O Rajaram Mahto R/O Village- Bachhauta, P.S-
Morkahi, Distt.- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, informant
and the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 96, 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per prosecution case, on 12.05.2025 at about 4
AM, when daughter of the informant went to attend nature’s
call, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these
petitioners, are alleged to have kidnapped her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8457 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
2/2
Specific accusation of kidnapping is against co-accused Saurav
Kumar and these petitioners have falsely been implicated in this
case merely because they happen to be family members of co-
accused Saurav Kumar. F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate
delay of about 28 days which itself raises doubt over veracity of
the prosecution case. There is no allegation of any specific overt
act against petitioners.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail
application.
6. Considering the nature of accusation and other facts
and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail is allowed
and it is ordered that let the above named petitioners 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
bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria in connection with Beldaur P. S.
Case No. 172 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.