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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23373 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2022 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Surendra Mahto @ Surendra Kumar Mahto Son Of Chandarma Mahto R/OBathua, P.S.- Manjhagrah, Distt.- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 14-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Manjhagrah P.S. Case No. 360 of 2022, lodged on 17.11.2022, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 354, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and later on added Section 302 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against six named accused persons including the present petitioner. The specific allegation of assault against the petitioner is upon the deceased that he has made farsa blow on the head of the deceased, who was brutally injured and admitted to the hospital.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23373 of 2024(5) dt.14-08-2024 2/2 that there was five days' delay in filing the FIR. He submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 08.04.2023. He also submits that other two co-accused persons having almost similar allegation were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 70888 of 2023. He submits that injuries reported do not support the allegation and offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the case after about two months.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that against the present petitioner there is a direct allegation that he has made farsa blow on the head due to which injury caused and during treatment the injured died.

6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby refused.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T