Sonelal Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50197 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-579 Year-2020 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sonelal Mahto Son of Ramchandra Mahto Resident of Village- Ranipakdi, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Muffasil Bettiah P.S. Case No.579 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner and co-accused, Nathuni are said to have assaulted the informant by means of Bakhua and iron rod causing injury on the head of the informant. Thereafter all accused persons started assaulting the informant and fractured his right leg. The accused persons took out Rs.22,000/- from the pocket of the informant. When the brother of the informant came to save him, all accused persons started assaulting him also. It is also alleged that all accused persons broke the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50197 of 2021(5) dt.07-07-2022 2/2 motorcycle of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that on account of land dispute, the petitioner and other co-accused persons made been made accused in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application.

The learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that though it is not clear that who assaulted whom and by which weapon but it is clear that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are grievous in nature.

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

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T