Mantu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3130 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-435 Year-2020 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== MANTU KUMAR Son of Shyamlal Mahto @ Shyamlal Singh Resident of Village - Dhanpurwa, P.S.- Sasaram (M), Distt.- Rohtas. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2294 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-435 Year-2020 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== OCEAR MAHTO @ SACHIN MAHTO Son of Teni Mahto Resident of Mohalla- Pratapganj, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Fulchand Ram Late Bengali Ram Resident of Village-Pratapganj,Ward no36,P.S-Sasaram(T), District-Rohtas ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3130 of 2021) For the Appellant :

Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.

(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2294 of 2021) For the Appellant :

Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 26-04-2023 Since both the appeals arise out of the same Police Station Case Number, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2294 of 2021 has filed a jointness petition stating therein that respondent no.2 and his son, who had received notice on behalf of respondent no.2, reside together in the same house.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3130 of 2021(6) dt.26-04-2023 2/3 In view of the aforesaid fact, the notice issued to respondent no.2 is treated to be validly served. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

Both these appeals have been filed under Section 14(A)

(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer of anticipatory bail vide order dated 02.07.2021 [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3130 of 2021] and order dated 27.03.2021 [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.2294 of 2021], passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.435 of 2020, registered under Sections 341, 323, 506, 379, 385, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as under Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants are said to have abused the informant by naming his caste. It is also alleged that appellant, Mantu Kumar assaulted the son of the informant by means of hockey. Appellant Ocear Mahto is said to have assaulted the daughter of the informant by means of lathi.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the appellants have got no

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3130 of 2021(6) dt.26-04-2023 3/3 criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the appeals. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. It is submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

Learned Special P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants, but does not deny the factum of compromise between the parties.

Considering the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, let appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.435 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and both these appeals are allowed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T