Surendra Mahto @ Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22057 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-458 Year-2025 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Surendra Mahto @ Surendra Prasad @ Surendra Prasad Singh Son of Mahesh Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Paharpur, P.S.- Bibhutipur, DistrictSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sarbottam Kumar Sarkar, Advocate Ms. Savika Kumari, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Amarjeet Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate Md. Bobassar Ali, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 458 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 76, 324(4), 109, 103(i), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The petitioner and others are said to have killed the deceased.
4. The petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2025 and from the records, it appears that the petitioner is the assailant of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22057 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/2
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the assailant of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T