Shankar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13246 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Shankar Mahto S/o- Late Sakal Mahto Vill- Madhoul, P.S- Mahua, DistVaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Shiva Devi w/o- Late Ramesh Paswan Vill-PO- Madhoul, W. No-10 P.SMahua, Dist- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Usha Kumari 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 175 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 504, 506, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61193 of 2024 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 175 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 376 / 34 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13246 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 the IPC, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w), (3)(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of committing rape with a child. The petitioner is in jail custody since 30.06.2023.

4. Learned APP for the State as well as the informant oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the informant Mr. Kunwar Ajit Singh gives an undertaking in the Court that he will co-operate in the trial.

6. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

8. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and two witnesses have been examined.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T