Lakhindra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35952 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2020 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== LAKHINDRA MAHTO Son of Vishwanath Mahto Resident of Village - Maniarpur, P.S.- Rajepur, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.B.N.Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rajepur P.S. Case No.40 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that his daughter-in-law went for bringing water from tubewell but she got dispute with Marachhiya Devi. Lakhindra Mahto(the petitioner), Birendra Mahto, Rajesh Mahto, Devendra Mahto, Opendra Mahto, Rambabu Mahto, Bhola Mahto, Ranjeet Mahto came there and started abusing the informant. They also assaulted the informant. Raushan and Bijli Mahto came to save the informant and his daughter-in-law but Lakhindra Mahto assaulted Raushan by means of iron rod. Raushan Kumar fell down on the ground and thereafter other accused persons started assaulting Bijli

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35952 of 2020(2) dt.08-04-2021 2/2 Mahto.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that of course there is specific allegation against the petitioner that petitioner assaulted Raushan Kumar with iron rod on his head. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 19.04.2020 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 25.04.2020. There is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. but from perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it appears that informant was under treatment in Sadar hospital, Motihari and his son Raushan was referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment. From perusal of the injury report of Raushan Kumar, it appears that he got many fracture injuries on his head and the petitioner is author of the injury. The injury is grievous in nature.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T