ARUN MAHTO vs THE STATE OF BIHAR — 400/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th April 2026.
CRI. BAIL APPLN
CNR: BRBE010027492026
e-Filing Number
23-03-2026
Filing Number
2569/2026
Filing Date
23-Mar-2026
Registration No
400/2026
Registration Date
23-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Begusarai
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 11-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
66
Police Station
MATIHANI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ARUN MAHTO
Adv. Arvind Kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
Copy of Order
Case 400/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Begusarai granted bail to Arun Mahto, who was in judicial custody since January 14, 2026, for charges under BNS sections 309(4)/3(5) and the Arms Act arising from an armed robbery case. The court found that Mahto was not named in the FIR, no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession, he was not subjected to TIP, and his involvement was based solely on a co-accused's confession. Since co-accused persons were already granted bail by the High Court and Mahto had served significant custody, the court deemed bail appropriate. He was released on Rs. 10,000 bail bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including a relative as surety and undertaking not to commit similar offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 400/2026
Case 400/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Begusarai granted bail to Arun Mahto, who was in judicial custody since January 14, 2026, for charges under BNS sections 309(4)/3(5) and the Arms Act arising from an armed robbery case. The court found that Mahto was not named in the FIR, no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession, he was not subjected to TIP, and his involvement was based solely on a co-accused's confession. Since co-accused persons were already granted bail by the High Court and Mahto had served significant custody, the court deemed bail appropriate. He was released on Rs. 10,000 bail bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including a relative as surety and undertaking not to commit similar offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts