← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52117/2021bail granted

Rawan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2022-07-12Mr. Justice Harish Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52117 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2012 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== Rawan Mahto, Son of Jagbandhu Mahto, Resident of Village- Gaday Maharajpur, P.S.- Rajmahal, Distt.- Sahebganj (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Amdabad P.S. case no. 202 of 2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Exclusive Substance Act.

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on 07.09.2012 while the informant along with his wife and daughter-in-law were in their house, altogether 14 named accused persons came and started indiscriminate firing and

2/4 thrown bombs due to which the grand-sons of the informant, namely, Ajay Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, sustained firearm injury and later on one of them (Sanjay Kumar) died. It is also alleged that the wife of the informant and his son also received injuries of bombs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the F.I.R. named accused persons and no specific allegation of any overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a labourer and he had been residing in other State for his livelihood, therefore, he was not even aware with regard to the institution of the present case and due to which he could not surrender before the court and prayed for bail. It is next submitted that this petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2021 and moreover the investigation of the crime is completed and charge-sheet has been submitted.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner remained absconded for about 8-9 years, though he is named in the F.I.R.

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration that there is no specific

3/4 allegation against the petitioner, apart from the fact that some of the co-accused persons, who were sent up for trial, have been acquitted by the learned trial court, let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing of charge, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Amdabad P.S. Case No. 202 of 2012, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the local residents with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.

(v) The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the

4/4 court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.

(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T