Nandkishore Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48156 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2020 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Nandkishore Mahto Son of Ghogo Mahto @ Ghogal R/o Village - Paharpur, P.S.- Ballia, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Mohit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Ballia P.S. Case No. 28 of 2020/G.R. No. 305 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the petitioner has given a gunshot in the head of the informant's husband from a blank range. The post mortem report also goes to show that the deceased has head injuries.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48156 of 2025(6) dt.19-01-2026 2/2 counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the stage of trial from the learned trial court was called and from the perusal of the learned trial court's order, it is clear that the case is fixed on the point of hearing on charge. He also submits that the chargesheet has not been framed. He further submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 06.05.2024.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of fourteen cases. It is also stated that the petitioner is the main assailant in this case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner is the main assailant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, however, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

7. Learned trial court is directed to take every steps so that the case may be disposed of within the said period.

8. Accordingly, the bail petition of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T