Masudan Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Hansraj For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 21-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

¶13

Special Public Prosecutor for the State, however, notice has validly been served but none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶14

2 . This is an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the SC/ST Act) against the refusal of prayer of bail vide order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIcum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 184/2023 dated 03.09.2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 341, 323,

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.668 of 2025(4) dt.21-08-2025 2/4

¶16

324, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

¶17

3 . As per the prosecution case, when the informant along with Vikash Kumar went to attend call of nature towards Ishakoal but on the way Mahesh Mahto and Masuda Mahto started abusing him and on protest they become angry. On hearing halla, the informant's aunty, bhabhi and other local people assembled and from the appellant's side Shrawan Mahto @ Mukhi Mahto, Mako Mahto also came there and started abusing and assaulting. On protest by the informant, the coaccused Mahesh Mahto @ Matuk Mahto and Masudan Mahto (petitioner) went to the house and brought Katta and with an intent to kill fired upon him, causing injury on his back. Thereafter, the injured was taken to hospital for treatment.

¶18

4 . Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. As per FIR, no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the incident. Learned counsel has further submitted that no particular caste name has been called by the appellant hence no case is made out under SC/ST Act. Learned counsel has submitted that in the course of fleeing, the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.668 of 2025(4) dt.21-08-2025 3/4

¶20

informant has received firearm injury and he has not seen the actual occurrence. Both the parties are co-villagers and dispute arose due to meaningless thing. As per the Injury Report, a gun shot injury (entry wound) over right upper back of chest enedial to medical border of scapula and exit wound at right-rprade cleviouter region. The appellant has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The appellant is in custody since 06.09.2024.

¶21

5 . Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail by submitting that the allegation of firing is against the appellant and the co-accused person.

¶22

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIcum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 184/2023 is set aside against the appellant. The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶23

7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions JudgeVI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Nalanda at Biharsharif in

¶24

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.668 of 2025(4) dt.21-08-2025 4/4

¶25

connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 184/2023, with further

¶26

condition:-

¶27

(i). The appellant is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the appellant are liable to be cancelled.

¶28

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶29

atul/-

¶30

U T

Masudan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masudan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Sunny Kumar @ Awadhesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shailesh Tiwari @ Shailesh Kumar Tiwari @ Vendor Tiwari @ Vinder Tiwari@Vinder Vs The State of Bihar

Sharwan Mahto @ Mukhi Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Amresh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Puja Kumari @ Puja Devi Vs The State of Bihar