Ram Chandra Mahto And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25401 of 2017 (3) dt.25-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25401 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -227 Year- 2016 Thana -PUPRI District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Ram Chandra Mahto, aged about 82 Years, S/o Late Laxman Mahto

2. Gopal Mahto, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Ram Chandra Mahto. Both permanent residents of Village- Jogiya, P.S.: Pupri, District- Sitamardhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 227 of 2016 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is the husband of the deceased. Petitioners are not named in the first information report. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Nothing specific has been alleged against these petitioners. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Petitioner no. 1 is aged about 82 years.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25401 of 2017 (3) dt.25-07-2017 the case, let the petitioner no. 1, Ram Chandra Mahto, be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri, Sitamarhi in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 227 of 2016 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

However, considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner no. 2, I do not feel inclined to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T