Wakil Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35943 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-574 Year-2019 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

WAKIL MAHTO son of late Ramdeo Mahto, Resident of VillageBapudham Chandrahiya, P.S.- Motihari Muffasil, District- East Champaran. 2.

Geeta Devi wife of Wakil Mahto, Resident of Village- Bapudham Chandrahiya, P.S.- Motihari Muffasil, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2021 Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of Wakil Mahto (petitioner no.1).

Prayer is allowed.

The anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of Wakil Mahto (petitioner no.1) is dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner no.2, namely, Geeta Devi apprehends her arrest in Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No.574 of 2019 registered under Sections 447, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that while he was taking meal,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35943 of 2020(2) dt.07-04-2021 2/2 his elder brother (petitioner no.1) came and started abusing him. When the informant protested, Geeta Devi (petitioner no.2) caught him and thereafter Wakil Mahto (petitioner no.1) indiscriminately stabbed the informant with knife on different parts of his body.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.2 is sister-in-law of the informant. The brother of the informant stabbed him. No allegation is made against petitioner no.2. There is a land dispute, but it appears that there is specific allegation that petitioner no.2 firstly caught the informant and only thereafter her husband (petitioner no.1) gave four knife blows on different parts of the body of the informant. The informant was referred to Patna for better treatment. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner no.2 (Geeta Devi) on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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