Rohit Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47606 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2019 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== ROHIT SAHNI, aged about 21 years, Male, S/o Late Sipahi Sahni, R/o Tandi Ward No.9- Jokiya, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 31-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is that in course of returning Parvind Mahto stopped Arjun Mahto, the brother-in-law of the informant, and made complaint, when Arjun Mahto made protest, then, he was assaulted. Any how, Arjun Mahto came to house, thereafter, Parvind Mahto on phone called Rohit Sahni (petitioner), Ram Udagar Mahto, Mukesh Mahto, Arvind Mahto, Anil Kumar, Shivnandan Mahto and Parmanand Mahto and again came at the house of the informant. Sita Ram Mahto, husband of the informant, Arjun Mahto, brother-in-law of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47606 of 2019(2) dt.31-07-2019 2/2 informant, Hari Nandan Mahto made protest, then, all started to cause assault to Sita Ram Mahto. Arjun Mahto, Hari Nandan Mahto also received also received injury. Later on Sita Ram Mahto, husband of the informant, succumbed to the injury. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner along with seven other persons, are named in the first information report, with allegation to cause injury to the husband of the informant and others, but, no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which will be considered on its own merit and without being prejudiced of this order.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shamshad/- U T