Dilip Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1615 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -564 Year- 2015 Thana -MUFFASIL DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================
1. Dilip Mahto, son of Rudal Mahto, resident of Village- Gonauli, TolaRampur, Police Station- Bettiah Muffasil, District- West Champaran. .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-7 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 The appellant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 564 of 2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342,354, 427, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act. Allegation against the appellant is that they came to the informant and abused her by taking her caste name and also threatened her to vacate the land, on which she is residing. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that he has falsely been implicated in this case and in fact the land belongs to the appellant on which the informant is residing unauthorizedly, for which the appellant objected and due to which the present false case has been filed by her Learned Special P.P. objected the prayer for bail and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1615 of 2017 (3) dt.07-07-2017 2/2 submitted that a prima facie case under the above section of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant.
Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that a prima facie case under the above mentioned Section of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant, as such, this appeal is not maintainable.
Let appellant surrender before the special court and make prayer for regular bail and if any such application is filed, the special court after considering the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the land in question belong to appellant and he has valid paper of the same also, shall pass an appropriate order, preferably on the same day, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T