Dismissed¶23

Ramdayal Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Jul 2026CR. MISC./35383/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.35383 of 2026, decided 06-07-2026 by Ashok Kumar Pandey, J: regular bail prayer of Ramdayal Mahto and Dini Mahto @ Dindayal Mahto rejected in Marhowrah (Madhaura) P.S. Case No. 776 of 2025, District Saran, under Sections 103, 109, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS — alleged stabbing of the informant's son dragged from a marriage party; eyewitness Vicky Kumar's police statement relied on by the State; petitioners in custody since 25.11.2025; liberty to renew bail prayer after six months if trial not concluded; trial court directed to expedite trial. No precedent cited. Keywords: bail rejection, BNS, Patna High Court, Cr. Misc.

What did the court decide?

The Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage; their prayer for bail stands rejected. ¶23

Ramdayal Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35383 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-776 Year-2025 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

Ramdayal Mahto Son of Pukar Mahto Resident of Village- Bhawalpur, P.S.Marhowrah (Marhaura), District- Saran (Chapra).

¶5

Dini Mahto @ Dindayal Mahto S/o- Pukar Mahto Resident of VillageBhawalpur, P.S.- Marhowrah (Marhaura), District- Saran (Chhapra).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Swarnima, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 06-07-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in connection with Marhowrah (Madhaura) P.S. Case No. 776 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 103, 109, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with others have stabbed the son of the informant. It is further alleged that one Vicky Kumar who was attempting to rescue the deceased, was also being assaulted with knife.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35383 of 2026(3) dt.06-07-2026 2/3

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place in a marriage party and it is alleged that the petitioners have dragged the deceased from the marriage party and have killed him. Learned counsel has submitted that it is highly improbable that a man will be dragged from the marriage party and nobody will object. It has further been submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that one Vicky has seen the occurrence as he was attempting to rescue the deceased and has also received injury but there is no injury report of the said eye witness, namely, Vicky. Learned counsel has submitted that there is allegation against four persons that they have assaulted with knife whereas from perusal of the postmortem report, it transpires that the deceased has received on incised wound over anterior chest and the doctor conducting autopsy has opined that the cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injuries caused by sharp object.

¶20

Learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased himself was not a man of clear antecedent. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, they are languishing in judicial custody since 25.11.2025.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35383 of 2026(3) dt.06-07-2026 3/3

¶22

Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioners of stabbing the deceased. During course of investigation, Vicky the eye witness of this case has also given his statement before police wherein he has stated that the petitioners have stabbed the deceased.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage and, as such, their prayer for bail stand rejected.

¶24

However, the petitioners may be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

¶25

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶26

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶27

Shubham/-

¶28

U T

Ramdayal Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdayal Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaruddin Ansari @ Dholakia Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Gupta @ Anil Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Kameel Gaddi @ Kamil Gadi Vs The State of Bihar

Naresh Mandal @ Naresh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sunil Kumar Singh @ Sunil Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Viran Paswan @ Biran Paswan Vs The State of Bihar