Raju Kumar Mahto @ Langur v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.486 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2020 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
RAJU KUMAR MAHTO @ LANGUR Son of SRI UPENDRA MAHTO Resident of Village - Padmaul, P.S. - Kudhni, District - Muzaffarpur 2.
SAJAN KUMAR MAHTO Son of LATE SITA RAM MAHTO Resident of Village - Padmaul, P.S. - Kudhni, District - Muzaffarpur. 3.
PRINCE KUMAR MAHTO @ KHAKHARI Son of SRI SOMARU MAHTO @ DEVENDRA MAHTO Resident of Village - Padmaul, P.S. - Kudhni, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Udbhav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Kudhni P.S. Case No. 300 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 354B, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C., Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Further he submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.486 of 2021(6) dt.13-01-2022 2/2 Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that petitioners are named in the first information report. There is specific allegation against them. Further he contended that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. specifically stated against these petitioners. Hence, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the State, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected.
shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T