Patna High Court
Balo Mahto @ Baleshwar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the rape allegation against a minor and the victim’s corroborated statement preclude the grant of regular bail.
Summary
Balo Mahto, a 65‑year‑old resident of Begusarai, was charged with rape under sections 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, based on a complaint that he assaulted a girl on 7 May 2025. The FIR was lodged on 21 May 2025, and the petitioner has been in custody since 4 June 2025. He applied for regular bail, claiming false implication due to village politics and noting the delay in filing the FIR and his clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the victim’s statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. confirming the allegation and the victim’s age being assessed as 17. After hearing both sides, the Court found the allegations serious, the victim’s corroborated statement, and therefore refused to grant bail, dismissing the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused in a rape case involving a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioner’s age and clean record justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 351(2), 64
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- regular bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- victim statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90191 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- Parihara District- Begusarai
======================================================
Balo Mahto @ Baleshwar Mahto S/O Late Prabhu Mahto R/O Village- Ward
no. 1, Malkua, Po- Parihara, PS-Parihara, Distt-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X D/O Y R/O Village- Ward no. 1, Malkua, PS-Parihara, Distt-Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.K. Lal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Parihara P.S. Case no.
19 of 2025 registered under sections 64 and 351(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3 and 4 of the
POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that in the night of 7.5.2025 when she went out to ease herself,
the petitioner committed rape on her.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner who happens to be a 65 years old elderly man has been
falsely implicated in the case because of village politics. While the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 7.5.2025, information
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90191 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/2
was given to the police only on 21.5.2025 without any explanation
for the delay. The informant does not mention her age in the FIR.
The petitioner is in custody since 4.6.2025 and has no criminal
antecedent.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State who submits that there is direct allegation against
the petitioner in the FIR. The age of the victim was assessed to
be 17 years in course of investigation and the victim has
supported the prosecution case in her statement under section
183 of the B.N.S.S.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR together with the contents of the statement of the victim
recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. wherein she has
supported the allegation of the petitioner having committed rape
on her, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and
the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…