Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29715/2021bail rejected

Vinod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-21Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29715 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2020 Thana- VIDYAPATINAGAR District- Samastipur ====================================================== VINOD MAHTO S/O LATE LALO MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGESHERPUR, POLICE STATION- VIDYAPATINAGAR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP.

Mr. SURYA NARAYAN ROY Mr. SURYA NARAYAN ROY ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-02-2022 Heard the parties.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

The petitioner, who is in custody since 24.11.2020, seeks regular bail in connection with Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No. 54 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302/34 was added.

The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29715 of 2021(4) dt.21-02-2022 2/2 that the petitioner is the order giver and he provoked the coaccused Deepak Mahto to kill the husband of the informant Satishchandra Tiwary. Co-accused Dipak Mahto assaulted on the eye and nose of the husband of the informant by means of iron rod and also pushed him and he fell down, as a result of which he sustained injury on his head and in course of treatment he died.

Considering the direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. by the wife of the deceased who is the informant of this case and is also a witness who has seen the alleged incidence with her own eye which cannot be disbelieved, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial well within a period of twelve months.

If no substantial progress takes place in the trial within the aforesaid period, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T