Ramu Mahto @ Ramanand Prasad And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12164 of 2016 (2) dt.16-03-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12164 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -333 Year- 2015 Thana -VAISHALI District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================
1. Ramu Mahto @ Ramanand Prasad, son of Lutkan Mahto @ Lakshman Prasad.
2. Doman Mahto @ Uma Shankar Prasad, son of late Anandi Mahto Both are resident of village- Sain, P.S. Vaishali (Belsar O.P.), DistrictVaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 16-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 333 of 2015.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and there is case and counter case between the parties.
4. Considering that there is no specific accusation of assault attributed to the petitioner no. 2, in the event of the petitioner no.2's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioner no. 2 be released
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12164 of 2016 (2) dt.16-03-2016 on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, in connection with Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 333 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
5. In view of the petitioner no. 1 having allegedly assaulted the informant with dabiya several times on the informant's head, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 1. The anticipatory bail petition of petitioner no. 1 stands dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- U T