Sandeep Mahto@Sandeep Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67635 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- GAUNAHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sandeep Mahto@Sandeep Mahato S/o Moti Mahto@Moti Mahato R/o Village- Meghauli, P.S.- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Gyan Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Kumar Srivastava, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the Informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 347 of 2025 arising out of Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427, 447, 504, 506 of the I.P.C.

3. As per prosecution case, the accusation against the petitioner is that he along with other named accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and caused grievous head injury to the Informant's brother.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67635 of 2025(2) dt.19-09-2025 2/3 against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dirty village politics. He further submits that as per allegation, Saddhu Mahto and the petitioner are alleged to have assaulted the informant's brother upon his head. It is also alleged that they have also assaulted the father of the Informant due to which he sustained injury over his hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the injured Vinay Kumar has sustained grievous injury by hard and blunt object which falsifies the prosecution case of inflicting sword blow to the injured. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 04.03.2025 without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner again submits that the co-accused namely Hiraman Mahato has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5920 of 2025.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of inflicting sword blow on the head of Vinay Kumar due to which he sustained grievous

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67635 of 2025(2) dt.19-09-2025 3/3 injury over his head.

6. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that the trial is going on and out of total five witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of allegation, gravity of the offence as also the present stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three months as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T