Patna High Court
Surendra Kumar Mahto @ Nanki @ Surendra MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is maintainable and the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the addition of IPC 307.
Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Kumar Mahto, was implicated in a land‑dispute incident where he allegedly led a group that assaulted an informant with sticks and a pistol, and attempted to fire a weapon. The FIR originally charged him under IPC sections 342, 504, 506 and 34 and Arms Act section 27. Later the police added a charge of IPC section 307 (attempt to murder) in the chargesheet, and the trial court took cognizance of this new offence. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated and that the addition of a new non‑bailable offence should not bar bail. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi, the High Court held that the addition of a new cognizable offence requires a fresh consideration of bail and that the anticipatory bail application was maintainable. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application remains maintainable when a new cognizable, non‑bailable offence (IPC 307) is added after the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the changed circumstances and the precedent set in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34, 342, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 307
- non‑bailable offence
- land dispute
- CrPC Section 438
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9387 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2024 Thana- MANSURCHAK District- Begusarai
======================================================
Surendra Kumar Mahto @ Nanki @ Surendra Mahto S/o Ram Bharoshi
Mahto @ Ram Bharosh Mahto R/o Village- Aagapur, PS- Mansurchak, Dist-
Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Ram Bahadur Mahto R/o vill - Kastoli, P.O. - Samsa, P.s.-
Mansurchak, ward no. 5, Distt.- Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Mansurchak Police Station Case No. 17 of 2024, dated
09.03.2024, disclosing offences under Sections
342/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. The Prosecution case, as per the FIR, is that on
07.03.2025 at about 01:10 PM, the informant was cutting
Crop in his field at village Rajapur, the petitioner along
with 45 unknown persons arrived with danda and pistol
and having seen the informant, the petitioner exhorted his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9387 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/4
associates to assault the informant and the petitioner
attempted to fire however the bullet didn’t fire. When the
informant raised an alarm then Santosh Kumar, Rajesh
Mahto and Mukesh kumar who were working in the
nearby field, rushed towards the informant. On seeing
them approaching, the petitioner and his associates fled
away from the place of occurrence while extending
threats to the informant, leaving behind their motorcycle
at the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has committed no offence and has falsely been
implicated in this case since there is land dispute between
the petitioner and the informant. Learned counsel further
submits that earlier the case was instituted under Sections
342,504,506,34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Act and the petitioner was released on bail. However, the
police submitted chargesheet under Section 307 of the
IPC along with other allied sections of IPC and Arms Act
on 29.09.2024. The learned Court below has taken
cognizance under Section 307 of the IPC along with
Sections 342,504,506,34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act on 08.01.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9387 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/4
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi, reported in (2001) 4
SCC 280, that with the addition of a new cognizable and
non-bailable offence, the accused becomes disentitled to
the liberty earlier granted in relation to the offences for
which the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, the
correct approach would be to apply its mind afresh as to
whether the accused is entitled for grant of bail in the
changed circumstances.
6. In the present case, initially the FIR was registered under
Sections 342/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act, however, subsequently the
chargesheet was submitted under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code along with other other allied sections
of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. This court is of
the view that since the case was initially not instituted U/s
307 IPC and it was added in the chargesheet and
cognizance has also been taken by learned Court below,
therefore, an application for anticipatory bail on the
ground of having an apprehension of arrest in the same
case can be said to be maintainable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9387 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
4/4
7. Accordingly, this court is inclined to grant privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner
8. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
9. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest
or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be
released 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
First Class, Begusarai, in connection with Mansurchak
Police Station Case No. 17 of 2024, subject to the
condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U T
Checking your session…