Pankaj Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50531 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2022 Thana- MEDNI CHAUKI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== PANKAJ MAHTO SON OF CHALITRA MAHTO R/O-DEWGHARA CHANDRA TOLA, P.S.-MEDNI CHOWKI, DISTT.-LAKHISARAI ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Medni Chowki P.S. Case No.- 166 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354(B), 379, 307, 448, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has got no criminal antecedent. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had assaulted Kapildev Mahto who is the dever of the informant with an iron rod on his head. It is further alleged that when the informant came to rescue then all the accused persons assaulted the informant and also snatched her gold chain from her neck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50531 of 2023(2) dt.23-08-2023 2/2 case. It is submitted that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and concocted.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the materials available on the record showing that there are allegations against the petitioner that he had assaulted Kapildev Mahto on his head by an iron rod and in the medical examination two grievous injuries have been found on the head of the injured Kapildev Mahto, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.

8. In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by the order of this Court.

9. This application stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/- U T