Fukko Mahto @ Pramanand Mahto @ Phuko Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22411 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2007 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Fukko Mahto @ Pramanand Mahto @ Phuko Mahto Son Of Late Sakhichand Mahto Residemce Of Vill.- Harinagar Harna P.S. Goradih Jagdishpur, DistBhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 04-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Jagdishpur (Goradih) P.S. Case No. 205 of 2007 instituted for the offence under Sections 364(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier, the petitioner was granted regular bail on 21.07.2011 by this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Misc No. 9540 of 2011 but the bail bond of the petitioner was canceled on 14.10.2019 due to failure to appear before Court. Thereafter, the process of Under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was issued and he was arrested on 29.09.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner along with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22411 of 2023(6) dt.04-10-2023 2/2 other co-accused person abducted the father of the informant for ransom demand.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case due to village politics. The petitioner is not named in FIR only on the basis of suspicion his name has been transpired in this case. No eye witness of alleged occurrence.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted regular bail but the same was cancelled on 14.10.2019 because he had misused the privilege of bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months, failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail application.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) shubham/- U T