Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39514/2016rejected

Gorelal Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-17Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39514 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2016 Thana -NARDIGANJ District- NAWADA ====================================================== Gorelal Mahto Son of Bishal Mahto @ Rameshwar Prasad Resident of Village -Harinarainpur, p.S- Nardiganj, District - Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 32/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307, 353, 379 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant is a Junior Engineer Electricity Supply Department. The informant alleged that on raid the petitioner was found committing theft of electric energy and he was running a mill. It is alleged that petitioner assaulted the informant and others with sticks and also snatched Rs. 10,000/- from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is false and concocted. The informant and others entered into the house of the petitioner and pushed the widow in order to outrage her modesty and that is why villagers assaulted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39514 of 2016 (2) dt.17-09-2016 2/2 them. Petitioner does not own any mill. During the course of investigation villagers have stated that the petitioner is the owner of the mill.

It appears that the informant is a Junior Engineer of Electricity Supply Department and when he went for raid on complaint about the theft of electric energy, petitioner not only assaulted the informant, but also snatched money from his possession.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T