Deepak Mahato And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49427 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2017 Thana -GAUNAHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Deepak Mahato, son of Hanuman Mahato.

2. Seema Devi, wife of Chhathu Das.

3. Parvati Devi, wife of Halkhori Mahato.

4. Lalita Devi, wife of Shahjad Mahato @ Shahjad Mukhiya. All (1 to 4) are residing of Village- Jamuniya, P.S.- Sahodara, District- West Champaran.

5. Jitu Kumar @ Jitu Tiwari, son of Arun Tiwari, resident of Village- Kata Tola Jamuniya, P.S. Sahodara, District- West Champaran.

6. Abhay Kumar, son of Ramashankar Guro.

7. Premjeet Kumar, son of Vijay Mahato.

8. Ramawati Devi, wife of Gobind Prasad. All (6 to 8) are resident of Village- Jamuniya, P.S.- Sahodara, District- West Champaran.

9. Nagendra Mahto, son of Shiv Narayan Mahato, resident of VillageBethaniya, P.S.- Sahodara, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar-1, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-08-2018 Heard the parties. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Gaunaha P.S.Case No. 111 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325,332, 333, 307, 436, 395, 427, 353, 151, 152, 153, 187, 188, 189, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. As per F.I.R., allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners and other accused persons were on Dharna and demonstration and at the same time approximately thousand

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49427 of 2018 (2) dt.28-08-2018 2/2 persons came armed with various weapons and they became aggressive and assaulted to the police personnel with stone chips and brick piece, causing injuries.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that large number of persons have been made accused and no specific allegation has been attributed against the petitioners and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, let the petitioners, above named on surrender or arrest within six weeks be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, DistrictWest Champaran in connection with Gaunaha P.S.Case No. 111 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. with condition that one of the bailors of the petitioners shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned court. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T