Patna High Court – Orders
Dinesh Mahato vs The State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.507 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2015 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Dinesh Mahato, S/O Late Ramnath Mahato, R/O Vill.- Jawahirpur, P.S.-
Lauriya, Dist.- West Champaran.
2. Dinanath Yadav, S/O Late Langatu Yadav @ Langad Yadav, R/O Vill.-
Jawahirpur, P.S.- Lauriya, Dist.- West Champaran.
3. Amresh Mahato, S/O Dinesh Mahato, R/O Vill.- Jawahirpur, P.S.- Lauriya,
Dist.- West Champaran.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Addl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar No. 2, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)
5 10-03-2026
I.A. No. 1 of 2025
Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant no. 2, Mr. Satya Narayan
Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar No. 2, learned counsel appearing for the
informant.
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed
seeking suspension of sentence and release of the appellant no. 2
on bail during pendency of the appeal.
3. Earlier, we had granted time to the State to file
written objection/show cause, however, no written objection/
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.507 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
2/6
show cause has been filed.
4. The appellant no. 2 has been convicted and
sentenced vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2025 and
03.03.2025 respectively by the District Additional Sessions
Judge-VIII, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 426
of 2015 (arising out of Lauriya P.S. Case No. 96 of 2015)
whereby and whereunder the appellant no. 2 was convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342 and
302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
‘IPC‘) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life under Section 302/149 IPC and six months each under
Sections 147 and 148 IPC and further sentence of simple
imprisonment for one month under Section 341/149 IPC, further
six months imprisonment was also awarded under Section
342/149 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. The case of the prosecution is as under:-
“On 12.05.2015 at about 10:30 PM, the informant
along with his brother Vijay Kumar Tiwari was sitting in the
verandah of the house situated at Jawahirpur village after taking
dinner and after some time, the informant went to sleep in his
room but as soon as he reached in the room, he heard hulla and
came out of his room and saw that the accused persons, namely,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.507 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
3/6Ramnath Mahato, Dinesh Mahato, Amresh Mahato, Arjun
Mahato and wife of Umesh Mahato was assaulting his brother
and lifted him by his hand and leg and was taking away his
brother. By the time, he understood anything, they had taken
away his brother inside their house and locked in a room. The
informant further alleged that Dinanath Yadav (appellant no. 2)
abused him and made him to leave the place.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 2 has
submitted that taking into consideration the prosecution case on
its face value, the allegation as against the appellant no. 2 is
confined to him standing at the door of the house which is said
to be the place of occurrence and restricting the informant by
abusing him and making him leave the place. He has further
submitted that so far as the allegation of assault is concerned,
the first information report as also the evidence during trial,
disclose allegation of other accused persons of having assaulted
the deceased by means of sticks etc. The name of the appellant
no. 2 featured only in the latter part of the first information
report as being present at the place of occurrence indulging in
hurling abuse. It has further been submitted that during trial
neither PW-1 nor PW-2, who have posed themselves as the eye-
witnesses, have taken the name of the appellant no. 2 and it is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.507 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
4/6
also a fact that they have not been declared hostile by the
prosecution which makes their evidence binding on the
prosecution.
7. Further, the Investigating Officer has also
contradicted the major parts of the evidence of the other
witnesses and the story is developed during trial which was not
stated before the Investigating Officer. Further, the deposition of
the I.O. also discloses that no objective evidence was collected
from the place of occurrence.
8. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this
Court to paragraph ’40’ of the deposition of the informant (PW-
6) who has stated therein that by the time he had reached the
place of occurrence, the accused persons had already taken away
the deceased, as such, he is also not in a position to be called an
eye witness of the occurrence.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the ground that the
presence of appellant no. 2 at the place of occurrence stands
established by the evidence and he also played an active part.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considerably perused the materials available on the record, we
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.507 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
5/6
prima-facie find that so far as the present appellant no. 2 is
concerned, the allegation found as per the first information
report is confined to have been only present at the place of
occurrence, abusing the informant and that too does not get
substantially supported during trial as it is gathered that two of
the prosecution witnesses, who claim to be the eye witnesses,
have not named the appellant no. 2 at all during the trial in their
depositions.
11. We have also taken into consideration the
evidence of the I.O. disclosing contradictions in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses as regards the role played by the
appellant no. 2. Even considering the prosecution case as a
whole, the appellant no. 2 neither seems to be an assailant nor an
active participant in the assault.
12. Considering all the above-mentioned materials
and taking holistic view of the facts and circumstances, we find
that a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during
pendency of the appeal has been made out on behalf of appellant
no. 2.
13. Accordingly, we direct suspension of sentence and
release of the above-named appellant no. 2 on bail during
pendency of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.507 of 2025(5) dt.10-03-2026
6/6
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District
Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bettiah, West Champaran in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 426 of 2015 arising out of
Lauriya P.S. Case No. 96 of 2015.
14. Fine, if any, imposed as part of sentence as against
appellant no. 2 shall remain suspended during pendency of the
appeal.
15. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 stands allowed.
16. It is clarified that the observations made
hereinabove are only prima facie and tentative in nature for
purpose of consideration of the prayer for bail which would not
cause prejudice to either of the parties.
17. List this appeal for hearing on it’s turn.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U T