Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83316/2025bail granted

Manoj Mahto @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-25Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83316 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2023 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Manoj Mahto @ Manoj Kumar S/o Nepo Mahto @ Nepal Mahato R/o Village- Kamruddinpur Ulao, Ward No 5, PS- Singhaul, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2024 arising out of Matihani P.S. Case No. 97 of 2023, lodged on 02.07.2023, under Sections 363 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Sections 302, 201 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected twice vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10210 of 2024 with Cr. Misc. No. 21792 of 2024 and vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5513 of 2025.

4. Counsel further submits that charge has already

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83316 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/3 been framed and the evidence of all four witnesses has been concluded, and the petitioner has unnecessarily been kept in custody in this case. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.07.2023 and has a clean criminal antecedent. Counsel further submits that, on the previous occasion, a report regarding the present stage of the trial was called for.

5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the examination of all witnesses has already taken place. However, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for production of additional witnesses with a view to clarifying matters regarding the FSL report.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that a report regarding the present stage of the trial was called for.

7. From the report, it transpires to this Court that the prosecution has examined eight (08) witnesses, including the informant and the Investigation Officer and by virtue of an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning the Assistant Director of the R.F.S.L., Bhagalpur, the matter is being delayed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83316 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 3/3

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioner above named, be granted bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) as mentioned in Section 2(1) (d) of the BNSS, 2023 to the satisfaction of District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Begusarai, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2024 arising out of Matihani P.S. Case No. 97 of 2023, subject to the following conditions as laid down under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U