Patna High Court
Bablu Mahto @ Bablu Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to stipulated conditions, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Bablu Mahto, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case alleging conspiracy to fire at an informant, invoking sections 109, 308(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR admitted a prior rivalry, and that no incriminating material or independent witness linked him to the offence. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon arrest or surrender, subject to a cash bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and specific conditions, invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the BNSS. The order also stipulated that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail, and clarified that the observations in the order would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the circumstances presented?
- Whether the material on record justifies denial of bail under the provisions of the BNSS and the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 308(4), 3(5), 482, 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- conspiracy
- firearms
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9645 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Bablu Mahto @ Bablu Kumar Mahto S/o Jay Narayan Mahto Resident of vill-
Bataha, P.S- Rosera, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sadanand Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest
in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 229 of 2025 instituted
for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 308(4), 61(2),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the
conspirator and had used the named co-accused persons to fire
upon the informant, who received one firearm injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated and it has been admitted
in the FIR that there is a previous rivalry between the parties. It
has further been submitted that on account of suspicion the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9645 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
name of the petitioner has transpired without any evidence to
connect the petitioner with the same. It has further been
submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from
the possession of the petitioner and no independent witness has
come forward to support the contentions made in the FIR. It has
next been submitted that the informant has specifically
submitted that along with the petitioner there were two other
persons who were involved in conspiracy. It has lastly been
submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner is
directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on
his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
1, Rosera, Samastipur in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No.
229 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482 of the BNSS and subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9645 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
relative of the petitioner and the other shall be a
local resident:
(ii) the petitioner will remain present on
each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so
required by the learned Trial Court;
(iii) in case of absence on two
consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the
bail, the bail bonds of the petitioner will liable to be
cancelled by the Court concerned;
(iv) the Court below shall 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 bonds of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of the same on in the name of
verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…