Patna High CourtCR. MISC./61497/2023rejected

Gaytri Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-15Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61497 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2023 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Gaytri Devi Wife Of Dilip Mahto R/O Vill - Bataha, Dakshinwari Tol, Ward No. 11, P.S. - Rosera, Distt. - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Informant :

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

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Rosera P.S Case No. 235 of 2023 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342, 363, 307, 326A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, allegation against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons is to have assaulted the son of the informant after tying his hand and further alleged that the acid was sprinkled in the eye of son of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61497 of 2023(5) dt.15-07-2024 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty local politics. It is further submitted that there are no sign of acid has been found on the place of occurrence and nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

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

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that on the order of co-accused Ajit Mahto this petitioner along with other co-accused Dilip Mahto and 4-5 unknown persons poured acid in the eye of the son of the informant, causing unconscious.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T