Raj Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76407 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-329 Year-2025 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ====================================================== Raj Kumar Mahto, S/o Chandra Mahto, Resident of - Ravisen Palli Bogal Colony, Amrabati, C.R.P.F Camp, Durgapur, P.S - New Township, District - Paschimi Bardhman (W.B) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Asha Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Asha Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 329 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 316(5) of the B.N.S.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant has sent construction material of Rs. 12,75,564/- through transport Sharda Roadlines. The petitioner is the owner and driver of the truck. It is alleged that as the consignment did not reach in the time, it was being enquired and was told that due to some mechanical error in the truck the consignment could not reach the place.

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. The fact is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76407 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 that as there was some mechanical error in the truck, the construction material was unloaded at a place which was shown to the police and from where all the materials were recovered. This case has been filed only on the basis of misconception and lack of proper information. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial Court has rejected his bail petition only on the ground that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of same nature. It has also been submitted that all the construction materials have been recovered from the place as disclosed by the petitioner. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 27.07.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application for bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Purnea in connection with Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 329 of 2025. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T