Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to petitioner 1 but granted anticipatory bail to petitioner 2 subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Manoj Kumar Mahto and Saroj Kumar Mahto were arrested in connection with a case involving the seizure of an informant's tractor and demand for ransom, during which they allegedly assaulted two individuals, causing grievous and simple injuries. The petitioners applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that a counter‑case existed and that they had suffered injuries as well. The State opposed, contending that serious assault charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 352, 351(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023, and that CrPC Sections 82 and 83 had already been invoked, precluding bail. The Court denied anticipatory bail to petitioner 1, noting the grievous injury caused, but allowed him to seek regular bail upon surrender. Petitioner 2 was granted anticipatory bail on condition of surrender within four weeks, furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in view of the seriousness of the alleged assault.
- Whether the existence of a counter‑case and injuries to the accused preclude anticipatory bail.
- Whether the issuance of processes under CrPC Sections 82 and 83 bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82, 83
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- grievous injury
- assault
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- counter case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85723 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2024 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Manoj Kumar Son of Ramnarayan Mahto Resident
of Village - Ward no. 04, Ranjitpur, P.O. and P.S. - Khanpur, District -
Samastipur.
2. Saroj Kumar Mahto @ Saroj Kumar Son of Ramnarayan Mahto Resident of
Village - Ward no. 04, Ranjitpur, P.O. and P.S. - Khanpur, District -
Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Ranjan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned
Advocate for the State as well as learned Advocate for the
informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Khanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),
117(2), 352, 351(1), 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. On the fateful day, while the informant had sent his
tractor for some social work, in the meanwhile, he came to
know that all the accused persons including the petitioners
seized his tractor and demanded a ransom of Rs.2 lac. When the
informant reached at the spot, all of them started abusing him. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85723 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/4
is specifically alleged that petitioner no.1 assaulted one Vijay
Prasad with butt of the pistol over his head, whereas petitioner
no.2 assaulted Vishwa Mohan Kumar over his head by means of
iron rod, due to which both of them have sustained serious
injuries.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners referring to
the FIR contended that the present case is nothing but a counter
blast to Khanpur P.S. Case No.282 of 2024; though it is
instituted after the present case. However, this fact cannot be
ruled out that the fardbeyan of petitioner no.1 was recorded in
the emergency ward of Sadar Hospital, Samastipur in the
evening of the fateful day itself. In the said incident, petitioner
no.1 along with other persons have also sustained injuries and
out of which one injury received by co-accused Dharmendra
Kamat is found to be grievous in nature. It is further contended
that other co-accused persons, namely, Ramnarayn Mahto,
Dharmendra Mahto and Anil Kumar have been enlarged on
anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.
Misc. No.78184 of 2025 vide order dated 03.12.2025, taking
note of the fact that there is a case and counter case and injuries
have occurred on both the sides, besides the fact that in the
event of declaration, it is not as if in all cases that there will be a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85723 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
3/4
total embargo on considering the application for grant of
anticipatory bail application. The petitioners are the men of fair
antecedent and they undertake that they will fully cooperate in
the proceeding of the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
as well as the learned Advocate for the informant vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that specific
accusation has been levelled against these two petitioners of
causing assault to Vijay Prasad and Vishwa Mohan Kumar, out
of which one has sustained grievous injury over his head. It is
further contended that process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC
has already been issued and, as such, in view of the mandate of
the Apex Court, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
specific nature of accusation against petitioner no.1, leading to
grievous injury, this Court is not acceded to his prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected.
7. However, if petitioner no.1 surrenders before the
court below within a period of four weeks from today and seeks
regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit(s)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85723 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
4/4
without being prejudiced by this order.
8. So far petitioner no.2 is concerned, against whom it
is alleged that he has also assaulted one Vishwa Mohan Kumar
and the injuries have been found to be simple in nature and
other co-accused persons have also been allowed the privilege
of anticipatory bail taking note of the fact that they were
pursuing their remedy before this Court and the process has
been issued in the meanwhile, let the above named petitioner
no.2, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned J.M.F.S., Samastipur in connection with
Khanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2024, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioners.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…