Dismissed¶¶38

Dashrat Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Jan 2026CR. MISC./62473/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, common order dt. 19-01-2026 by Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.; bail application rejected; Cr. Misc. No. 62473 of 2025 (Dashrat Mahto) and Cr. Misc. No. 66778 of 2025 (Suresh Mahto, Sunil Mahto); arising out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 73 of 2014; charges under Sections-302, 394, 307, 341, 323, 325, 120(B) IPC, 27 Arms Act, Section ¾ Explosive Substances Act; bomb attack and pistol firing on deceased Niraj Singh; informant eyewitness Rambalak Singh; parity plea with co-accused Saudagar Mahto (bail order dt. 09-06-2015 in Cr. Misc. No. 17397 of 2015) refused as petitioners remained absconding and delayed trial.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for bail of all three petitioners was rejected by common order. ¶¶38

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for bail of all three petitioners was rejected by common order.

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (Dashrat Mahto, Suresh Mahto and Sunil Mahto) charged in Jamui P.S. Case No. 73 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 307, 341, 323, 325, 120(B) IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section ¾ of the Explosive Substances Act deserve to be released on bail. +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

The informant is an eyewitness who was accompanying the deceased; the occurrence took place before his eyes and these petitioners themselves fired upon the deceased.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' case cannot be equated with that of co-accused Saudagar Mahto: Saudagar Mahto was granted bail in 2015, whereas the petitioners remained absconding and, owing to their non-appearance, the progress of the trial suffered for a considerably long duration.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of bail, and accordingly the bail applications are rejected.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — Jamui P.S. Case No. 73 of 2014 (offences punishable under Sections-302, 394, 307, 341, 323, 325, 120(B) IPC; 27 Arms Act; Section ¾ Explosive Substances Act): By a common oral order dated 19-01-2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 62473 of 2025 (Dashrat Mahto) and Cr. Misc. No. 66778 of 2025 (Suresh Mahto and Sunil Mahto), the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.) rejected the petitioners' bail applications. Per the informant Rambalak Singh's fardbayan, near Kakan Kushwaha Vahwan Mod on 21.03.2024 some accused hurled bombs killing Niraj Singh on the spot, the petitioners armed with pistols fired seven rounds upon the deceased, and rupees two lakhs kept in the motorcycle's dikki were taken away. The Court found the informant an eyewitness accompanying the deceased and noted the petitioners themselves fired upon him. Declining parity with co-accused Saudagar Mahto — granted bail by a coordinate bench vide order dated 09-06-2015 in Cr. Misc. No. 17397 of 2015 — the Court held the petitioners' case could not be equated with his because they remained absconding and their non-appearance delayed the trial considerably; the prayer for bail was therefore rejected.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62473 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2014 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui

¶3

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

¶4

Dashrat Mahto S/o Sahdeo Mahto R/o vill- kakan, P.S.- Jamui, Distt.- Jamui

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

with

¶11

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66778 of 2025

¶12

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2014 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui

¶13

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

¶14

Suresh Mahto S/o Late Sahdeo Mahto R/o Village - Kakan, P.S - Jamui, District - Jamui

¶15

Sunil Mahto S/o Late Bhuneshwar Mahto R/o Village - Kakan, P.S - Jamui, District - Jamui

¶16

... ... Petitioner/s

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶19

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶20

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62473 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66778 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

4 19-01-2026

¶23

Both these cases arise out of the same case i.e.

¶24

Jamui P.S. Case No. 73 of 2014 and accordingly, they are

¶25

being heard together and disposed of with this common order.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62473 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026 2/4

¶28

learned APP for the State.

¶29

The petitioners seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections-302, 394, 307, 341, 323, 325, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section ¾ of Explosive Substances Act.

¶30

The prosecution case in brief is that informant Rambalak Singh has recorded his fardbayan before police at Sadar Hospital, Jamui that on dated 21.03.2024 at about 05:00 pm when he was waiting for Tempo at Mahisouri Chowk to go to his home at Kakan, meanwhile Niraj Singh who happens to be his villager was going with his motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR46B 3721, then he asked to give lift him and he seated on the bike as pillion rider. Al about 06:00 pm when both of them reached near Kakan Kushwaha Vahwan Mod, accused Jodhi Mahto assaulted upon the head of Ni-raj Singh by Lathi and the same struck against Informant's hand and due to that his hand got fractured. In the meanwhile accused Kamlesh Mahto, Subhash Kumar @ Vi-rappan, Subhash Mahto @ Yuvraj Mahto hurled two bombs which hit on informant's left hand and on the head and left shoulder of Niraj Singh due to which his skull broken out and he died on the spot

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62473 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026 3/4

¶32

and the motorcycle also got damaged. Thereafter accused persons Dashrath Mahto, Suresh Mahto, Saudagar Mahto and Sunil Mahto all armed with pistol and fired seven round upon Niraj Singh. There were 5-6 unknown persons whom he could not identify. The said accused persons also took away rupees two lakhs which was kept in Dikki of motorcycle. Thereafter, in afraid state he went to relative's of Niraj Singh and informed about the occurrence. He believes that due to previous enmity the above named accused persons with a criminal conspiracy killed Niraj Singh and injured him. On the basis of the aforesaid fact the present case has been lodged and the investigation is proceeded.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Altogether five injuries were found on the person of the deceased, amongst which, the injury Nos. 1, 2 & 5 were caused by explosive substances whereas the injury Nos. 3 & 4 are caused by firearms. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that cause of death is the explosive substances. It has further been submitted that the co-accused Saudagar Mahto has

¶34

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62473 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026 4/4

¶35

been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 09-06-2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17397 of 2015.

¶36

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶37

The informant is an eye witness. He was accompanying the deceased. The occurrence has taken place before his eyes and these petitioners also fired upon the deceased. The case of the petitioners cannot be equated with that of co-accused Saudagar Mahto as because Saudagar Mahto was granted bail in the year, 2015 whereas the petitioners remained absconding and due to their nonappearance, the progress of the trial suffered for a considerable long duration.

¶38

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners does not deserve the privilege of bail and accordingly, the same is rejected .

¶39

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶40

A.K.V.//-

¶41

U T

Dashrat Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrat 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Prakash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Dawloo @ Md. Dabalu Vs The State of Bihar

Nagmani Singh @ Nagmani Kumar Vs The State of Bihar