Patna High CourtCR. MISC./600/2020rejected

Harendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2021-10-25Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.600 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2019 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

HARENDRA MAHTO Son of Munilal Mahto Resident of Village - Salauna, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj 2.

Chandrawati Devi Wife of Harendra Mahto Resident of Village - Salauna, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj 3.

Vikash Kumar Son of Harendra Mahto Resident of Village - Salauna, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-10-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 372 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous dispute regarding P.D.S. shop dealership. The allegations levelled are general and omnibus in nature. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.600 of 2020(4) dt.25-10-2021 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation of assault against them by means of bamboo, talwar and iron rod. Injury Report also corroborates the allegations levelled. Petitioners, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T