Panch Lal Mehta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.24862 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -169 Year- 2015 Thana -BHARGAWAN District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Panch Lal Mehta Son of late Kameshwar Mehta @ Kaleshwar Mahta @ Kabeshwar Mehta Resident of Village Majhauva, PS Bhargama, District Araria.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.24878 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -169 Year- 2015 Thana -BHARGAWAN District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Uttim Lal Mehta @ Uttam Lal Mehta Son of Late Manik Lal Mehta Resident of Village Majhaua, P.S. Bhargama, District Araria .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.24862 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay , APP (In Cr.Misc. No.24878 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, in these two cases and learned counsel for the State.
The respective petitioners seek bail in connection
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24862 of 2016 (4) dt.17-08-2016 2/3 with Bhargama P. S. Case No. 169 of 2015 dated 28.08.2015 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is general and omnibus allegation made in the FIR against seven accused persons, including these two petitioners. One of the accused Arun Mehta whose case is identically situated to that of the petitioners has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23722 of 2016. It is further submitted that there is counter case instituted by one Sunil Kumar wherein it has been alleged that it was the deceased who had fired upon Sunil Mehata, but the bullet missed the target.
On the other hand, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State has submitted that in the FIR itself, it has been categorically stated that it was the petitioner Panch Lal Mehto who had fired at the deceased and in order to give a different colour to the case he had planted the firearm in possession of the deceased. He has further contended that several lacerated injuries were found on the person of the deceased in the post-mortem report which would corroborate the story narrated in the FIR that the victim was tied with a motorcycle and dragged by the petitioners for quite a long
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24862 of 2016 (4) dt.17-08-2016 3/3 distance. Referring to the statements of the witnesses, namely, Parmeshwar Gupta, Anil Mehta, Lalan Ram and Akhilesh Kumar Mehta recorded in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the case-diary respectively, it has been submitted that all the witnesses have fully corroborated the statement of the informant as recorded in the FIR.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though there is allegation of firing in the FIR, no firearm injury has been found on the person of the deceased. He has further contended that from the FIR itself, it would be evident that it was the petitioner who had informed the informant of the case regarding the confinement of the deceased.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected.
However, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after framing of charges.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- U T