Rakesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54085 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2014 Thana- MAIN P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

RAKESH MAHTO SON OF SHIVNARAYAN MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AND P.S- MAIN, DIST- GAYA 2.

RAMANUJ MAHTO SON OF SHIVNARAYAN MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.S- MAIN, DIST- GAYA ... ... Petitioners.

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

MANOJ SINGH SON OF NANDU MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGEAKDAFATAK4NO, PANKHETI P.S- CHANDANNAGAR, DISTCHOBISPARGANA (W.BENGAL) ... ... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vikash Kumar 'V.Kumar'

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, O.P. No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Main P.S. case No. 23/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are said to have killed the sister of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54085 of 2021(3) dt.28-06-2022 2/2 informant by pouring kerosene oil and her dead body was disposed of without intimating her brother and other relatives. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioners are living in their own separately since six years ago. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners is serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T