Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Santosh Mahto was arrested on 5 April 2025 in connection with a 2017 bank robbery case (Sherghati P.S. Case No. 220) and charged under IPC sections 419, 414, 120(B) and Arms Act sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the confessional statements of co‑accused who implicated Mahto, with no other material evidence presented. The petitioner argued that, apart from these statements, no cogent proof linked him to the offences and that no further investigation had been conducted after the charge‑sheet. The State opposed bail, citing two prior cases against the petitioner, though it was noted that he was on bail in those matters. The Court, considering the lack of substantive evidence and the petitioner’s cooperation, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance, non‑tampering of evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The order disposes the bail petition in favour of the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the prosecution’s case is based solely on co‑accused confessional statements.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal cases justify denial of bail.
- Whether the absence of further investigative material affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 414, 419
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act
- Indian Penal Code
- pre‑trial detention
- antecedent criminal record
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88159 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2017 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Mahto S/O Upendra Singh @ Upendra Mahto R/O
Vill.- Apaki, P.S.- Kasma, Dist.- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamlendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
05.04.2025 in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 220 of
2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 414,
120(B) of IPC and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on a secret
informant police raided a house of two warrant accused and
caught them. On being asked they disclosed their name as (1)
Niraj Kumar @ Satendra Ravidas, (2) Rajesh Kumar Ravidas @
Akash Das @ Pankaj Das and (3) Sanjay Das. Further on being
asked they disclosed that they were planning for Bank robbery
in the house. They further disclosed that accused petitioner
Santosh Mahto and Vikash Singh are also involved in this crime.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88159 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
They were arrested accordingly. Further in their confessional
statement they disclosed the place where they hidden arms and
stolen articles. Further on the disclosure of their statement that
place was searched from where heavy quantity of arms were
recovered. Some stolen articles were also recovered. Seizure list
is attached with the record. Both accused Niraj and Rajesh
disclosed that they used the recovered articles.
Regarding recovery of money they said that it is looted money
from Magadh Gramin Bank and regarding gold jewellery they
have disclosed that this gold jewellery brought by Sanjay Das
and Santosh Mahto and they told that they converted it into
money from Gold Smith.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been made an accused in the present case based
on the confessional statement of co-accused person and
petitioner is remanded in the present case on 05.04.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the
confessional statement no cogent material has come during the
course of investigation to suggest the involvement of petitioner
in the present case and till date no TIP has been conducted by
the prosecution and police after investigation has submitted
charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88159 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent
of two cases other than the present case but fairly submits that in
paragraph-12 of bail petition, it is mentioned that petitioner is
on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati (Gaya) in connection with
Sherghati P.S. Case No. 220 of 2017, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88159 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.