Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30711/2026disposed

Krishna Nandan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-15Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30711 of 2026 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42168 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2023 Thana- HAYAGHAT District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Krishna Nandan Mahto S/o Raj Kishore Mahto R/o Village- Bilashpur, East, PS- Hayaghat, Distt- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for modification of the order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42168 of 2025 whereby while granting bail to the petitioner in connection with Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 133 of 2023 the petitioner was granted bail by this court with a condition that while accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner, the learned trial court will verify whether the petitioner has completed the allotted work or not.

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per his information, the work has not been completed by the petitioner due to certain hindrances caused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30711 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026 2/2 by one Rudal Paswan regarding which, he has also written to District Magistrate.

4. From order dated 20.08.2025, it transpires that the learned counsel has also submitted that he has submitted all the bills to the concerned authority but completion report has not been handed over to him. This order was passed in an impression that the petitioner has completed all the works.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now informed this Court that the work has not been completed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this is not a case of modification.

7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner may be at liberty to file an appropriate petition if so advised.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner stands rejected.

9. Hence, this modification application stands disposed of.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- Sneha/- U T