Shambhu Mahto @ Shambhu Kumar Mehta vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Shambhu Mahto @ Shambhu Kumar Mehta vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2025

Author: Rajiv Roy

Bench: Rajiv Roy

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56934 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2023 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Shambhu Mahto @ Shambhu Kumar Mehta S/o Dinesh Prasad Mehta R/o vill
                 - Shivnagar, P.S.- Piribazar, Distt- Lakhisarai
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Kumar Baitha, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   27-08-2025

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

connection with Piribazar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2023 registered

for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 354(B)

and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 21.11.2023 by the

informant, Munni Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the allegation is that

there was a dance program at the village school premises where

the accused persons came in an intoxicated condition started

abusing everyone, upon protest, allegation is that Sandeep

Kumar gave iron rod blow to the informant as also the son-in-

law Pramod Prasad Gupta who came to rescue. Pramod Prasad

Gupta received injury on his head while allegation is that

Mausam Kumar and this petitioner assaulted and her family

member. This led to the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56934 of 2025(2) dt.27-08-2025
2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

main allegation is against the Sandeep Kumar, a vague

allegation has been made against this petitioner of assaulting the

informant, he has not assaulted Pramod Prasad Gupta, has no

criminal antecedent. Last submission is that earlier final form

was submitted against him but later cognizance has been taken

on 17.10.2024 by the concerned court necessitating the

anticipatory bail application.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting

that assault theory has also been assigned.

6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also

the fact that the main role has been attributed to Sandeep

Kumar, this petitioner has no criminal antecedent, earlier final

form was submitted, in that background, this Court is inclined to

extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of

arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the

receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-

(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the

satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Lakhisarai, in connection with Piribazar P.S. Case No. 164 of

2023. subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56934 of 2025(2) dt.27-08-2025
3/3

438(2) of the Cr.P.C., as also with the following conditions:-

(i) one of the bailor should be the family

member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official

document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner 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

bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned

police station every fortnight for next six months to mark his

attendance;

(iv) the petitioner 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;

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any

criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty

to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

U      T