Patna High Court
Shivnath MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Pre‑arrest bail may be granted where the accused is not specifically implicated in the FIR and has no prior criminal record, subject to verification that stolen property is not recovered from his premises.
Summary
The petitioners, Shivnath Mahto and Halim Mian, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged theft of computers from a school. They contended that they were falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and that the only basis for their inclusion was a confessional statement of a co‑accused, which they argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, while the court noted that petitioner no.2 had a clean antecedent and no specific allegation of recovery of stolen articles from his premises. Consequently, the court granted conditional pre‑arrest bail to petitioner no.2, subject to verification that no stolen property is found at his or his family’s residence. However, because petitioner no.1 had two pending criminal antecedents, the court refused bail to him. The bail application was therefore disposed with a partial grant.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and is implicated solely on a co‑accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the presence of prior criminal antecedents justifies denial of pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether bail can be conditioned on verification that stolen property is not recovered from the accused's premises.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 380, 411, 457
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Indian Penal Code
- theft
- criminal antecedent
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86375 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2012 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Shivnath Mahto son of Ganesh Mahto Resident Of Village- Laxmipur
Gobardhani, Ps- Yogapatti (jogapatti) Dist- West Champaran
2. Halim Mian Son of Wakil Mian @ Bakil Miya Resident Of Village- Ward no
13, Belbanwa, Police station -Yogapatti,(jogapatti) District- west Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Nirmal Kumar
Sinha, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 02 of 2012 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian
Penal Code and later on Section 411 of Indian Penal Code was
also added.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, some
unknown thieves have stolen away the computers from the
school, namely, Smt. Janki Devi Project Kanya High School,
Madhopur, District, West Champaran.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86375 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners are not
named in the FIR and names of the petitioners have surfaced in
this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused
Chhathu Mahto and confessional statement made before police
has no evidentiary value. Petitioner no.1 has one criminal
antecedent, while petitioner no.2 has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR and the fact that petitioner no.2 has clean
antecedent and it is not specific from pleading and information
contained in the bail application that recovery of stolen article
was made from him, I am of the opinion that petitioner no.2
has, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest
bail on such terms and conditions, as the learned District
Court deems it fit and proper, subject to the condition that if
it is found by the learned District Court after verification
that no stolen article was recovered from the house of the
petitioner no.2 or any of his family members.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86375 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
7. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, considering
two criminal antecedents pending against him, I am not
inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner no.1.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…