Ram Lal Mehta And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.871 of 2016 Arising out of P.S. Case No. -146 Year- 2016 Thana -ROHTAS District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ===========================================================
1. Ram Lal Mehta, son of late Jagdeo Mehta.
2. Jitendra Mehta, son of Raj Mohan Mehta.
3. Anish Mehta, son of Bindeshwar Mehta.
All are resident of village- Thumha, Police Station- Rohtas, Dist- Rohtas. .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Binay Krishna, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. By way of the present appeal preferred under Section 14-A (2) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), the appellants have challenged the order dated 10.9.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 146 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) (n) and 3
(2) (v) (a) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.871 of 2016 dt.20-10-2016 2/3
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. As a matter of fact, due to land dispute existing between the parties, the members of the prosecution party had attacked upon the appellants and for the said reason, on the same day, Rohtas P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016 was registered against the members of the prosecution party under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention is that no serious injury was caused to anyone and the injury sustained by the members of the prosecution party was mostly simple barring to which were on a non vital part of the bodies i.e. on finger.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that several persons from the side of the informant were injured in the alleged incident and he concedes that there is counter version also but the counter case is still under investigation and, hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution case instituted on the basis of the statement of the victim Yashwant Paswan is false. He has submitted that the appellants have not remained in custody for sufficient time.
5. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 19.9.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Rohtas P.S. Case No. 146 of 2016 is set aside. The appellants named above,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.871 of 2016 dt.20-10-2016 3/3 are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 146 of 2016.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) S.Ali/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22.10.2016 Transmission Date 22.10.2016