Nagina Mahto And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5820 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -459 Year- 2015 Thana -MAJHAULIA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================
1. Nagina Mahto, Son of Bhabhikshan Mahto @ Rajbibhishan Mahto
2. Binda Mahto, Son of Bhabhikshan Mahto @ Rajbibhishan Mahto
3. Raj Kumar Mahto, Son of Sukhdeo Mahto All are residents of Village - Ojha Mathiya, P.S. - Majhauliya, District - West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-02-2016 Sri Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, in presence of Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Brij Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, at the very outset submits that during pendency of the present petition, petitioner no.1, namely, Nagina Mahto has already been arrested. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of petitioner no.1 stands dismissed, as the same has become infructuous.
Two petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 2 and 3, apprehending their arrest in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case no.459/15 registered for the offence under Sections 147,148, 341,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5820 of 2016 (2) dt.22-02-2016 2/2 323, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the F.I.R. there is general and omnibus allegation. Moreover, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the postmortem report does not corroborate the specific accusation against the petitioners. He further submits that litigation in between the parties was going on since long and, as such, he makes a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Fact remains that the informant of the present case, who had made specific accusation against the accused persons regarding assault, subsequently died in hospital. On perusal of paragraph-3 of the petition it is evident that all the petitioners are having criminal antecedents also and they are accused in number of cases.
In view of nature of accusation, I do not find any ground for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U