Patna High Court – Orders
Rajendra Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1201 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2021 Thana- BAGENGOLA District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Rajendra Mahto S/o- Late Gopal Mahto R/o - Pokhraha Tola, P.S - Bagen
Gola, District - Buxar
2. Bikash Kumar S/o- Rajendra Mahto R/o - Pokhraha Tola, P.S- Bagen Gola,
District - Buxar
3. Sonu Kumar S/o- Rajendra Mahto R/o - Pokhraha Tola, P.S - Bagen Gola,
District - Buxar
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1209 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2021 Thana- BAGENGOLA District- Buxar
======================================================
Surendar Prasad Singh S/O Late Gopal Mahto R/o Vill.- Pokhraha Tola, P.S.-
Bagen Gola, District- Buxar
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1201 of 2025)
For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar Sriwastawa, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl PP
For the Informant : Ms. Dimpal Kumari, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1209 of 2025)
For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Sriwastawa, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl PP
For the Informant : Ms. Dimpal Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
4 15-04-2026
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1201 of 2025
I.A. No. 1 of 2026
Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State prays for and is granted three weeks’
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1201 of 2025(4) dt.15-04-2026
2/5
time to file written objection/show cause.
2. List this matter on 07.05.2026 under the same
heading.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1209 of 2025
I.A. No. 1 of 2026
3. By filing this interlocutory application, the sole
appellant has prayed for suspension of his sentence and release
on bail during pendency of the appeal.
4. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment
dated 25.06.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 18.07.2025 by
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Buxar in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2022 arising out of
Bagengola P.S. Case No. 76 of 2021 for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 323, 325, 307, 147 and 148 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘). He has been ordered to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the
offence under Section 302 IPC and in case of default of payment
of fine, he has to further undergo six months simple
imprisonment. For the sake of brevity, the sentences awarded
under other sections are not mentioned.
5. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of
Shanichari Devi (PW-3) who has alleged that on 16.07.2021 at
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1201 of 2025(4) dt.15-04-2026
3/5
07:30 PM in the evening, when her husband, namely, Brijkumar
Singh had returned home after performing mundan of her
grandson, he was informed that a calf went into the field of
Surendar Prasad Singh due to which it was killed and the she-
goat was injured. Brijkumar Singh (deceased) was going to the
house of Surendar Singh to interrogate about the matter but, on
his way, he met Surendar Singh in front of the house of Bhikhari
Yadav. When the deceased asked him as to why he killed an
innocent animal, then (1) Tarkeshwar Singh, (2) Nitish Kumar,
(3) Surendar Prasad Singh, (4) Rajendra Mahto, (5) Sonu
Kumar, (6) Vikash Kumar, (7) Atul Kumar, (8) Raghvendra
Kushwaha, all armed with weapons surrounded him and
Surendar Singh (appellant) with an intention to kill the
deceased, assaulted him with an iron rod on his head due to
which he fell on the ground. On hearing hulla, one Kashinath
Singh (PW-6) and Nagendra Singh (PW-5) came to save him but
they were also assaulted. The deceased was admitted in
Government Hospital, Raghunathpur from where he was
transferred to PMCH, Patna and in course of treatment, on
19.07.2021, the informant’s husband (deceased) died.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
are contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses which create
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1201 of 2025(4) dt.15-04-2026
4/5
doubt about the prosecution case. Learned counsel further
submits that the appellant has remained in incarceration for 4
years 9 months by now, this appeal being of the year 2025 is not
likely to be heard in near future, hence, he would deserve
suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency
of the appeal.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel for the informant have jointly opposed the
prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and
release on bail during pendency of the appeal. It is submitted
that PW-5 and PW-6 who are the injured witnesses have
deposed that it is this appellant who had assaulted the deceased
by iron rod.
8. Having regard to the evidences of Nagendra Singh
(PW-5) and Kashinath Singh (PW-6) who are the injured
witnesses of this case saying that it was this appellant, who had
assaulted the deceased by iron rod, we are of the opinion that
the appellant would not deserve suspension of his sentence and
release on bail at this stage.
9. It is submitted that the appellant has remained in
incarceration for about 4 years 9 months by now. Taking note of
this, we are of the opinion that if the appeal is not listed for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1201 of 2025(4) dt.15-04-2026
5/5
hearing within one year from today, the appellant may renew his
prayer for suspension of sentence and release on bail. For the
present, prayer is refused.
10. It is clarified that the observations made
hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative in nature for
purpose of consideration of the prayer for suspension of
sentence and release of the appellant on bail during pendency of
the appeal which will not cause prejudice to either of the parties.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
lekhi/-
U T
