Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54742/2015rejected

Tirpit Mallik And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar

2016-01-22Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54742 of 2015 (3) dt.22-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54742 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -145 Year- 2015 Thana -MANIGACHI District- DARBHANGA ======================================================

1. TIRPIT MALLIK S/o late Ramjee Mallick

2. Fudri Mallik @ Fudani Mallik S/o late Baleshwar Mallik Both resident of Village- Chhuria Mushari Tola, Police Station - Manigachhi, District Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B. N. Pandey, (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioners seek bail in connection with Manigachhi (Nehra) P.S. Case No. 145 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 448, 341, 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioners and other co-accused started assaulting the daughter-in-law of the informant with lathi, danda, stone and lodha, resulting, she succumbed to the injuries. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent and other co-accused Mamta Devi, Lalita Devi and Pavitri Devi have been allowed bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54742 of 2015 (3) dt.22-01-2016 and as such the petitioners who are suffering in custody since 29.05.2015 deserve sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that the witnesses have supported the allegation and further post mortem report also corroborates the prosecution version.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioners and further noticing their gender, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, accordingly, their such prayer stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T