Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dharmveer Mahto @ Dharamveer Kumar MahatoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Dharmveer Mahto, was implicated in FIR No. 514 of 2025 for alleged assault and robbery, including causing a head fracture with an iron rod and amputation of fingers. He claimed innocence, citing a clean antecedent and enmity with the informant as motive for false implication. The learned counsel highlighted that the injury was recorded as simple, three co-accused had already been granted bail, and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. The court examined these facts, the nature of the alleged offence, and the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail. Considering the lack of criminal antecedent and the circumstances, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond, sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 438
  • Section 482
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • assault
  • false implication
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9946 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-514 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Dharmveer Mahto @ Dharamveer Kumar Mahato Son of Late Dashrath
                 Mahto Resident of Village- Magaidih @ Manbgaidih, P.S.- Mufassil, Saran,
                 Bihar

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Shweta Anand
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   01-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Chhapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 514 of 2025, registered for

                   the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),

                   109, 303(2), 117(2), 3(5) of BNS.

                                3. The FIR alleges that on 06.09.2025 at about 5:00 PM,

                   when the informant objected the villagers for gambling in his

                   garden, the accused persons forcibly entered his house and

                   assaulted him and his family. Co-accused Banti Kumar allegedly

                   attacked him with a knife causing amputation of two fingers, while

                   the petitioner caused a head fracture with an iron rod. When his

                   mother and wife intervened, they were also assaulted, resulting in

                   fracture injury to his mother. It is further alleged that co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9946 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




          Rakesh Mahto snatched a gold mangalsutra from his wife.

                        4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He is a

          person of clean antecedent. In the investigation, nothing emerged

          against him. The petitioner has enmity with the informant and that

          is why he has falsely been implicated.

                        5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

          informant has opposed the prayer for bail.

                        6. The allegation against the petitioner is of assaulting

          the informant on the head with an iron rod causing fractured

          injury. However, in the case diary, at paragraph no. 28, it has come

          that the injury is simple in nature. It has also been been informed

          that three co-accused persons have already been granted bail on

          18.03.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 9905 of 2026. Also, the petitioner has

          no criminal antecedent. Considering all these aspects of the matter,

          I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioner.

                        7. Let the petitioner, as named above, in the event of his

          arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be enlarged on

          bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)

          with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned C.J.M., Saran at Chapra in connection with Chhapra

          Mufassil P.S. Case No. 514 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9946 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     down      under     section     438(2)     of       the   Code   of   Criminal

                     Procedure/Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

                     Sanhita, 2023 and subject to further condition that :-

                                  (i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation/

                     trial.

                                  (ii) The learned Court below would, however, verify the

                     criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case 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, it is expected that the verification process would be done

                     expeditiously without causing any delay.



                                              (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kundan/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.