Ranjit Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90370 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Ranjit Mahto S/o- Late Soudi Mahto Village- Mohaddinagar PS-Halsi DistLakhisarai 2.
Kamal Kishor Kumar @ Jalandhar Kumar S/o- Ranjit Mahto VillageMohaddinagar PS-Halsi Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No.21 of 2025, F.I.R dated 30.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 329(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, due to an ongoing land dispute with Ranjit Mahto pending before the Janta Darbar, all the accused persons attacked the informant and his wife on 29.01.2025 at about 8:00 a.m. while they were cleaning their vehicle. The accused abused and threatened to kill them, assaulted them with weapons including an iron rod, axe, khanti,
2/4 and a pistol, causing injuries to both. On hearing the commotion, villagers arrived and informed the police by dialling 112. The police reached the spot and sent the injured persons to Halsi Government Hospital for treatment. It is further alleged that the accused also took away a gold chain and earrings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the for a existing land dispute, the petitioners are said to have been roped in the present case and the co-accused namely, Jalandhar Kumar has been shown to be son of the petitioner, namely, Ranjit Mahto and there is no specific allegations levelled against these petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and from the injury report, it appears that the injuries which is said to have been caused to the informant are simple in nature and does not corroborate with the allegations which is said to have been levelled against these petitioners. The petitioner No.2 has clean antecedent and petitioner No.1 has three criminal antecedent but he is on bail in all the said cases.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to maintain peace and harmony with the informant and in case of any further similar nature of allegations being levelled against them and if the Police finds substance in the complaint made by
3/4 the informant, they may be at liberty to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there is no specific allegations levelled against these petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and from the injury report, it appears that the injuries, which is said to have been caused to the informant, are simple in nature and the petitioner No.2 has clean antecedent and petitioner No.1, though has three criminal antecedent, he is on bail in all the said cases. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No.21 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
4/4 Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T