Patna High Court
Mantun Mahto @ Pintu Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
Summary
Mantun Mahto and Makhru Mahto sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Chiraiya PS Case No. 42 of 2025) alleging assault under several sections of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted an informant, causing a fractured hand. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated due to a land dispute and that the FIR was lodged after a deliberate delay, with the injury being simple rather than grievous. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, subject to conditions including surety, presence in court, and verification of criminal antecedents, while noting that the order would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the CrPC read with Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. in view of the alleged assault charges.
- Whether the alleged false implication and land dispute justify the grant of bail despite the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115, 117, 126, 3, 324
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- land dispute
- false implication
- assault
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9708 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2025 Thana- Chiraiya District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Mantun Mahto @ Pintu Kumar Mahto Son of Vidyanand Mahto Resident of
Village- Sahuriya, Ward No. 14, P.S.- Chiraiya, District - Saharsa.
2. Makhru Mahto @ Makhru Kumar Son of Vidyanand Mahto Resident of
Village- Sahuriya, Ward No. 14, P.S.- Chiraiya, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 42 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 324(2)
and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
petitioners along with other named and five to six unknown
persons came to the informant and started assaulting. It is
further alleged that petitioner no. 1 gave a lathi blow on the
head of the informant while petitioner no. 2 also gave a lathi
blow however, the same hit on the hand of the informant and he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9708 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
sustained fracture.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have falsely been implicated on account of land
dispute between the parties. He further submits that for the same
occurrence, a case and counter case has been lodged on behalf
of the petitioners also and it is an admitted fact that the
occurrence took place on 21.08.2025 however, on 26.08.2025,
after a delay of six days, in a preplanned manner to implicate all
the petitioners, the FIR has been lodged. It has further been
submitted that from perusal of the injury report, it would be
evident that the injury sustained was found to be simple in
nature and the only injury by which the hand of the informant
was fractured was found to be grievous, though it is admittedly
on a non-vital part of the body. It has lastly been submitted that
the petitioners carry two criminal antecedents and they are on
bail in both the cases.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9708 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Chiraiya P.S. Case
No. 42 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be
their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9708 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
concealed their criminal antecedents, 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.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…