Jagjitan Mahato Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jagjitan Mahato Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the three petitioners who apprehend arrest in PS Case No. 368 of 2025 (Jamo Bazar police station, district Siwan), registered for offences punishable under Sections 121, 121(1), 115, 118(2), 109, 132, 221 and 121(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Damage of Public Property Act.

Court's answer

On perusal of the first information report and the impugned order dated 23.02.2026, the Court found that on police patrolling duty the petitioners and several other accused persons were indulged in blocking the road and damaged the police vehicle, and that the petitioners were named in the FIR; the Court was therefore not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the above-named three petitioners was rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - prayer rejected. High Court of Judicature at Patna (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23059 of 2026, decided 08-04-2026, arising out of PS Case No. 368 of 2025, Jamo Bazar police station, district Siwan. Three petitioners apprehending arrest under Sections 121, 121(1), 115, 118(2), 109, 132, 221 and 121(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Damage of Public Property Act sought anticipatory bail. The FIR alleged that the petitioners, as members of a mob, blocked a road, attacked police officials with a view to kill them and damaged the police vehicle during police patrolling duty, and the petitioners were named in the FIR. Petitioner-side counsel urged false implication, absence of specific allegations, dragging in due to ill motive, and clean antecedents (para-3 of the petition); the APP opposed, citing damage to government property and road blockade. Perusing the FIR and the impugned order dated 23.02.2026, the Court found the petitioners' involvement in road-blocking and damage to the police vehicle, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, and rejected the prayer of all three petitioners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23059 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2025 Thana- JAMOBAZAR District- Siwan

======================================================

Jagjitan Mahato (Male), aged about 37 years, Son of Shankar Mahto, Resident of Vill. - Chandan Chhapra, P.S.- Jama Bazar, Dist. - Siwan.

Munna Kumar (Male) aged about 27 years, Son of Mana Bhagat, Resident of Vill. - Chandan Chhapra, P.S.- Jama Bazar, Dist. - Siwan.

Daroga Sah (Male), aged about 45 years, Son of Master Sah, Resident of Vill. - Rampur, P.S.- Jamo Bazar, Dist. - Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumari Anupam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ======================================================

... ... Opposite Party/s

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

ORAL ORDER

2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 121, 121(1), 115, 118(2), 109, 132, 221 and 121(2) of the BNS & 3 and 4 of the Damage of Public Property Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, petitioners and other co-accused persons had blocked the road and have also attacked on police officials, due to which, the police vehicle was damaged and agitated persons also attacked on the police officials with a view to kill them and these three petitioners are members of that mob.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He next

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23059 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/2

submits that the petitioners were not the members of aggressive mob and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners and they have been dragged in this case only due to ill motive. Petitioners have got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are indulged in damaging the government property and also blocked the road.

On perusal of the first information report and impugned order dated 23.02.2026, it appears that on police patrolling duty, the petitioners and several other accused persons were indulged in blocking the road and damaged the police vehicle, as a result of which, the government official vehicle and other articles were damaged and petitioners were named in the FIR, so I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named three petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)