Patna High CourtCR. MISC./689/2017rejected

Shankar Mahto And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-09Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.689 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -126 Year- 2016 Thana -SATHI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Shankar Mahto, S/o Khalifa Mahto,

2. Anand Mahto @ Dhurandar Mahto, S/o Amerika Mahto,

3. Pramod Mahto, S/o Shankar Mahto, All resident of Village- Sirisiya, P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dashrath Mehta,A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Sathi P.S. Case No.126/16 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 436, 379 and 34 of I.P.C.

Accusation is that five persons named in the F.I.R. including the petitioners used to give pressure upon the informant to withdraw the case giving threatening that her house will be burnt. On 21.09.2016 the accused persons including the petitioners entered into the house of the informant, assaulted her daughtersin-law and grand children and looted away house hold articles.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.689 of 2017 (4) dt.09-03-2017 2/2 Further accusation is that at 12.30 P.M. accused persons including the petitioners came near the house of the informant and set the house of the informant on frire. Rakesh Mahto poured kerosene oil on the order of petitioner no.3 Pramod Mahto and petitioner no.2 Anand Mahto put the fire at the instance of petitioner no.3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail and on their so surrendering, the court below will consider the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) AnilKrSinha/- U