BHOLA MAHTO versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 16-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 191 : 2026 INSC 257
Bhola Mahto 
v. 
The State of Jharkhand
(Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2026)
16 March 2026
[Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Impugned order challenged by the appellant-convict contending 
that as he was not made aware of absence of the counsel 
engaged by him to prosecute the appeal before the Division 
Bench and as the Division Bench proceeded to appoint the 
amicus without his knowledge, he may be allowed to raise all 
such grounds which he had raised in the memorandum of appeal 
that was filed in the High Court to secure an order of setting 
aside the conviction u/s.304 Part II, IPC and the sentence of  
5 years rigorous imprisonment and to allow the appeal by recording 
an acquittal.
Headnotes†
Legal Aid – Appointment of amicus – Notice to convict – 
Appellate court if appoints an amicus to represent a convict 
whose counsel is absent, it may also consider the desirability 
of issuing a notice to the convict
Held: Having regard to the dictum of the three-Judge Bench in 
Anokhi Lal case and in order to curb the tendency of convicts 
to raise technical pleas of the nature which were advanced in 
the present case as not having knowledge of the appointment 
of amicus, whenever an appellate court considers it desirable 
to appoint an amicus to represent a convict whose counsel is 
absent, such court may also consider the desirability of issuing a 
notice from the registry to the address of the convict mentioned 
in the memorandum of appeal, for such notice to be served on 
him through the jurisdictional police station, with an intimation that 
the convict may contact the amicus and provide him necessary 
instructions so that his case is argued before the court effectively 
and meaningfully – In the event the convict contacts the amicus 
and provides instructions, there would ordinarily be no impediment 
in proceeding with hearing of the appeal – If, indeed, the convict 
192
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
desires to have his own counsel argue the appeal on his behalf and 
not the amicus, the court may hear such counsel in addition to the 
amicus – However, if the service report indicates that the convict 
was not found at the address or that he refused to accept notice 
despite being present, it would amount to sufficient compliance if the 
notice is pasted on the outer wall of the premises, address whereof 
is mentioned in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal – 
Should the convict still remain dormant, and it is so reported, the 
High Court may proceed to decide the appeal without waiting for 
the convict to turn up either in person or through the counsel of 
his choice engaged by him – This process would substantially 
serve the purpose of eliminating any plea of unfairness being 
raised before this Court if an appeal is disposed of upon hearing 
the amicus appointed by the court – Additionally, in a case of like 
nature where the appeal is listed two decades after grant of bail, 
this process would ensure obtaining of information as to whether 
the appeal survives for decision or stands abate – In case of 
the latter, the courts could avoid spending precious judicial time 
deciding an appeal which, by operation of law, may not require a 
decision on merits – Of course, for a convict in custody who has 
committed an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, 
the directions in Anokhi Lal have to be scrupulously followed 
apart from the relevant rules regulating the business of the courts 
concerned. [Para 23]
Legal Aid – Appellant-convict was on bail – His appeal was 
listed for hearing after being pending for more than two 
decades however, since no one appeared on his behalf, 
Division Bench appointed an advocate of more than 15 years’ 
standing as amicus curiae to assist the Court – However, no 
notice was issued to the appellant to the effect that his counsel 
was not appearing to prosecute the appeal and that an amicus 
had been appointed by the Division Bench – Division Bench 
set aside the conviction of the appellant u/s.302, IPC and 
the sentence of life imprisonment; conviction was altered to 
one u/s.304-Part II, IPC and the appellant was sentenced to 5 
years rigorous imprisonment – Challenged by the appellant 
contending that there has been a gross failure of justice as the 
grounds which the appellant had raised in his memorandum of 
appeal filed in the High Court were not urged by the amicus; 
instead, he urg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.