Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39258/2016dismissed

Surendra Mahto And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-23Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39258 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -251 Year- 2015 Thana -GOVINDGANJ DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Surendra Mahto son of Bhardul Mahto

2. Ranu Mahto

3. Sonu Mahto

4. Manu Mahto All sons of Surendra Mahto All residents of village- Sareya, P.S.- Govindganj, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-09-2016 Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Madan Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Four petitioners, who are named as accused in the F.I.R. for offence under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code in Govindganj P.S. Case No. 251 of 2015, have prayed for grant of bail in the event of arrest or surrender mainly on the ground that other two co- accused persons in similar circumstance have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by a bench of this court vide order dated 9.8.2016 in Cr. Misc. 31167 of 2016. It was further argued that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39258 of 2016 (2) dt.23-09-2016 2/2 of -course in the F.I.R. there is allegation that the husband of the informant was brutally assaulted by means of lathi, in the post mortem examination report no external injuries were found. On aforesaid ground a prayer has been made to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

However, after perusal of the F.I.R. the Court is satisfied that it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. So far grant of anticipatory bail to two co-accused persons are concerned, they were female members, and as such petitioners may not be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T