Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22442/2025bail rejected

Binod Mahto @ Vinod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-20Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22442 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2010 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Binod Mahto @ Vinod Mahto Son of Late Chhedi Mahto R/o VillageGhausai (Chausai), P.S.- Chausa, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.6 of 2025 (arising out of Chausa P.S. Case no.9 of 2010) registered under sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that his sister who was married to the petitioner herein was tortured for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. All the accused persons including the petitioner herein killed the informant's sister and disposed off the body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22442 of 2025(3) dt.20-06-2025 2/3 dated 28.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. no.63110 of 2024. Inspite of the petitioner having remained in custody since 10.6.2024, as per the instructions received, only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and there is no chance of the trial concluding in the near future. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial and to abide by any conditions which may be laid by this Court for his release on bail.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 22.4.2025, one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution till the said date and summons have been issued in the case.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased, the murder/disappearance of the sister of the informant having taken place sometime in February, 2010 and the petitioner having absconded for more than 13 years having been taken into custody only on 10.6.2024, the trial having commenced in the learned trial Court and two witnesses having been examined on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22442 of 2025(3) dt.20-06-2025 3/3 behalf of the prosecution as per the case of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T