Vinod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29483 of 2017 (3) dt.22-08-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.29483 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -28 Year- 2017 Thana -BHAIRABASHTHAN District- MADHUBANI ======================================================
1. Vinod Mahto, Son of Bhola Mahto, resident of Village- Hadadha Rupoli, P.S. Bhairav Asthan, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Bhairav Asthan Police Station Case No. 28 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 379, 354, 436 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner and the informant happen to be gotiya and there is land dispute between the parties for which a Title Suit No. 06 of 2017 is pending and on account of that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. No specific case is made out against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29483 of 2017 (3) dt.22-08-2017 the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of making abuse and tore the wearing of informant and also lit fire in the house of informant. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version, which is evident from paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) Brajesh/- U T