Jay Shankr Mahato @ Jai Shankar Mahto And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3508 of 2017 (4) dt.19-05-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3508 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2016 Thana -KATRAHA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================
1. Jay Shankr Mahato @ Jai Shankar Mahto,
2. Hari Shankar Kumar @ Hari Shankar Mahto, Both are sons of Bindeshwar Mahto, Resident of Village- Gurmiyan, P.S.- Kartaha, DistrictVaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sir Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Kartaha Police Station Case No. 03 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties happen to be gotias and there is land dispute between the parties and on account of that these petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Hence, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3508 of 2017 (4) dt.19-05-2017 petitioners that they have assaulted the informant and her husband and they have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant on the point of Katta and demanded ransom of Rs. 2 lacs. Moreover, the witnesses have supported the prosecution versions which would be evident from paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 27, 28 and 29 of the case diary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to these petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners is, hereby, rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J.) brajesh/- U T