Patna High CourtCR. MISC./77452/2025bail granted

Nagendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2025-12-19Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77452 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2024 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== Nagendra Mahto, aged about 28 years, Male, Son of Ram Kishun Mahto, Resident of Village- Daulatpur Chandi, P.S.- Haripur Sadar, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sarai Ranjan P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the allegation in the FIR, some unknown criminals looted away the vehicles loaded with Mangrail and other goods and assaulted the driver and khalashi of the vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the FIR has been lodged against unknown. He further submits that the name of the petitioner has been surfaced in this case only on the basis of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77452 of 2025(3) dt.19-12-2025 2/3 confessional statement of co-accused Arbind Sahni, who was arrested in another case and named the petitioner. He next submits that there is no any articles has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He lastly submits that petitioner has not put on Test Identification Parade till date. Petitioner has several criminal antecedents is in custody since 16.11.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the FIR and impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Samastipur dated 08.08.2025, it appears that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Arbind Sahni. Petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2024 as stated in para 4 of the petition. Investigation has already been concluded and chargesheet has been submitted in this case but no Test Identification Parade has been conducted during investigation, so considering all these aspects of the case and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner above named be released on bail on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77452 of 2025(3) dt.19-12-2025 3/3 furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Samastipur in connection with Sarai Ranjan P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date as fixed before the trial Court till conclusion of the trial and in absence on two consecutive dates, the learned trial Court shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.

U T