Rameshwar Mahto @ Rama Shree v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46670 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2021 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger ====================================================== RAMESHWAR MAHTO @ RAMA SHREE Son of Ram Nand Matho @ Ramdhir Mahto Resident of Village- Mokveera Chain toal, P.S. - Kasim Bazar, Munger, District- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-09-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 449, 452, 354(B), 302, 307, 504, 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered in connection with Kasim Bazar P.S.Case No. 71 of 2021.

As per the allegation, 16 named accused persons including the petitioner, entered in the house of the informant Priyanka Kumari after breaking open the door. Co-accused Birendra Mahto, Soni Mahto and Ashok Mahto fired on her father, who died sustaining injuries. Co-accused Kundan Mahto, Soni Kumar Mahto and others assaulted her brother Kundan

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46670 of 2021(4) dt.27-09-2022 2/2 Kumar Sah, who also died sustaining injuries. After pouring kerosene oil, they tried to burn them. They also assaulted the mother and nephew of the informant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the nephew of the petitioner was murdered by the members of the prosecution side and in this respect co-accused Ranjit Mahto lodged Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 70 of 2021. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the witnesses in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the case diary have supported the occurrence and named the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T