Ramadhin Mahto @ Akalu Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44540 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2024 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Ramadhin Mahto @ Akalu Mahto Son of Late Kapildeo Mahto Resident of Village- Rupauli, P.S.- Saraiya, Dist.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 2 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of assaulting the father of the informant due to which he succumbed to injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. There is no intention to kill the informant's father. The petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44540 of 2024(2) dt.27-06-2024 2/2
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR. There is specific allegation of assault by means of bamboo to the deceased is against the petitioner. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the specific allegation of assault against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. Hence, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within one year, failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Arish/- U T