Anant Mahto @ Gandu Mahto @ Guddu Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6009 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-654 Year-2014 Thana- KRITYANAND NAGAR DistrictPurnia ====================================================== ANANT MAHTO @ GANDU MAHTO @ GUDDU MAHATO S/o Chhutaharu Mahto Resident of village-Jhunnikala Bintol,P.S-K.Nagar,Distt.- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Shashi Shekhar Kishore For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 341, 326, 302. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is of giving Chhura blow on the wife of the informant, who in course of treatment, succumbed to the injuries.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 03-06-2016. Charge sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no other substantive

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6009 of 2019(3) dt.23-04-2019 2/2 evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R. There is specific allegation against the petitioner of giving Chura blow on the deceased. The postmortem report corroborates the allegation, made in the FIR. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 654 of 2014 is rejected.

The trial court is directed to take all possible steps to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order taking into account that the petitioner is in custody since 2016.

(Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T