Ashok Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3811 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2024 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna ====================================================== Ashok Mahto Son of Late Kameshwar Mahto Resident of Village- Milki (Milkipar), P.S.- Bikram, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kumar Bharti, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

02. This is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this Court as earlier his prayer for bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19905 of 2025.

03. As per prosecution case, petitioner and other co-accused persons assaulted the father of the informant when he opposed the act of the petitioner in taking away chaff from the doors of the informant. The assailants gave a chase and further assaulted the father of the informant when he tried to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3811 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/3 flee away. The assailants fled away on seeing the informant and others approaching the place. Father of the informant succumbed to his injuries while being taken to PMCH, Patna.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in custody since 26.10.2024 and till date the trial has not proceeded any further. Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and delay in concluding the trial is a valid ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Naveen Mahto has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 24.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41639 of 2025.

05. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that similarly situated co-accused Baban Mahto has been denied bail by a Co-ordinate Bench earlier vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14262 of 2025 and subsequently vide order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 91635 of 2025.

06. A report has been called for from the learned trial court on previous occasion regarding present stage of trial and it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3811 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026 3/3 has been submitted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Danapur, Patna that the case record has been committed for trial after cognizance being taken against the petitioner and others under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 3(5) of B.N.S.

07. Except for delay in conclusion of trial, no fresh ground has been shown by the petitioner for reconsideration of his prayer for bail. Therefore, finding no new ground, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner and hence, his prayer for bail is rejected.

08. The learned trial court is directed to take steps for early conclusion of the trial considering the fact that the petitioner and co-accused are in custody since long. (Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T