Supreme Court stays summon order by Sessions Court endorsed by Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court

In Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan condoned the delay and passed the order staying the order of the Sessiosn Court. The 1-page long order dared August 8, 2025 reads: "In the meantime, the order passed by the Sessions Court summoning the petitioner herein to face the trial shall remain stayed from its operation." 

Earlier, in Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court had passed a 4-page long order dated February 15, 2025. The appellant had preferred an appeal for “quashing the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge SC/ST, Bhagalpur passed in Shivnarayanpur, Kahalgaon, P.S. Case No. 451/2019 (G.R. No. 108/2019) offences alleged u/s 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. and 3(i) (2) (s) SC/ST Act. Pending in the Court of III, Additional District and Sessions cum Special Judge, SC/ST, Bhagalpur.”

As per the prosecution story, the informant had alleged that while sitting with his friend at Aanganwari Center at Santhali Tola, in the meantime, the accused persons including one Jaynath Mahto (Mukhiya) came and after abusing and by taking caste name, resorted to assault. This was witnessed by the villagers. As the informant fled away from the scene, the allegation is that certain ornaments were also snatched. This led to the FIR. Subsequently, the matter was investigated whereafter it traveled to the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhagalpur and after taking note of the FIR as also the witnesses, statement in paragraphs 3, 6 and 7, vide an order dated October 9, 2020, cognizance was taken in the matter. 

The appellant submitted that the occurrence had taken place at Aanganwari Center which is not an open place, an exaggerated version was presented and the Court in that background, erred in taking cognizance which needs interference.

Justice Roy observed: "10. Having heard the parties and perusing the record, a perusal of the FIR would show that the appellant is talking about the Anganwari Center and not the same inside the room. Further, as pointed out learned Spl.P.P. several names of the locals have been incorporated in the FIR who witnessed the occurrence. 11. In that background, the concerned Court was fully justified in taking up the matter and passing an order of cognizance against the appellant. 12. In that background, no interference is required. 13. Both the Interlocutory Application as well as present appeal stand dismissed."