Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42692/2017rejected

Manoj Mahto @ Manoj Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42692 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2017 Thana -SAHEBGANJ District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Manoj Mahto @ Manoj Kumar Mahto S/o Mohan Mahto Resident of Village- Suleman Chhapra, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ataur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sahebganj P.S. case No. 104 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that while his nephew was returning to his house, after closing the Basudha Kendra, Ankur Choubey, Sheo Kumar Pandit, Rahul Singh and Manoj Mahto, the petitioner, surrounded him and indiscriminately assaulted him with knife. Dilip Kumar came there to save but the accused persons started fleeing away.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the FIR itself it appears that informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence. The police did not take the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42692 of 2017 (3) dt.09-11-2017 2/2 statement of Dilip Kumar in the entire case diary. There is no specific allegation of assault against the petitioner but from perusal of the case diary it appears that informant himself stated that he saw all the four persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence in the light of cell. There is allegation that all the four persons stabbed Pramod Kumar. Pramod Kumar got as many as five stab injuries all over his body and the witnesses have also supported the version of informant.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T