Munna Mahto @ Munna Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3543 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2020 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj ====================================================== MUNNA MAHTO @ MUNNA CHAUHAN S/O BALIRAM MAHTO R/o village- Sareya Akhtiyar, P.S.- Manjha Garh, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sushil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 116 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, made in the FIR, the eleven named accused persons, including the petitioner, were constructing foundation on the land of the informant. On protest, they badly assaulted the informant and his mother Tara Devi. When his brother Laxman Mahto and bhabhi Sunita Devi came to rescue

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3543 of 2022(2) dt.08-08-2022 2/2 them co-accused Pawan Mahto assaulted them on their head and made them badly injured, Sunita Devi died during the course of her treatment and thereafter, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the specific allegation to assault the deceased is on Pawan Mahto and on the petitioner. He has submitted further that other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Other persons have been granted regular bail, but it is an anticipatory one. There is allegation that the accused persons badly assaulted the informant and his family members, due to which, Sunita Devi died during course of her treatment, as such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) shweta/- U T