Phuldeo Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36954 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2022 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Phuldeo Mahto Son Of Late Jaleshwar Mahto, Resident Of Village- Parsa Sadar, P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Jubair Ansari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP.

For the Informant :

Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 21-09-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. As per prosecution, the case has been lodged against 15 known accused persons. The specific allegation against the present petitioner is that he had fired on Bhola Sahani @ Rajesh Sahani and thereafter he fell down.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation the police has submitted final form against the petitioner but vide order dated 09.05.2022 which is Annexure-2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36954 of 2022(2) dt.21-09-2022 2/2 the court below has taken cognizance on him and issued process. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2022 having clean antecedent. He is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him by the Court.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the F.I.R. there is a specific allegation against the present petitioner of firing on Bhola Sahani @ Rajesh Sahani. He further submits that it is a case in which two murders took place, and it is indicated in the F.I.R. that Bhola @ Rajesh Sahani and Mukesh Sahani died. In the present facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.

The petitioner is at liberty to move for bail after one year from the date of framing of charge.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/- U T