Mahesh Rai @ Mahesiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66097 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2013 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Mahesh Rai @ Mahesiya Son of Laxhuman Roy Resident of villageRamgarha, Police Station- Awatar Nagar, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Mili Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-10-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 448, 379, 307, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case but then he was acquitted in the said case and the informant alleges that he along with a contractor were appointed as J.E. for construction of Virbhan High School at village Rampur, further on 17-6-2013 while informant was in the school, when 6 accused persons came on motorcycles and 4 of them entered the room, thereafter one accused asked the informant that why he has started working

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66097 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 2/3 here without stopping the work at Bhagwanpur, thereafter another accused assaulted him by butt of pistol and dragged him out of the room and thereafter the accused fired causing injury on the leg of the informant.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the FIR is against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional Statement of Sujit Kumar in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is further submitted that till date no process under Section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued, which amply demonstrates that police after investigation was sanguine about the innocence of the petitioner or else would have applied for process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66097 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 3/3 anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 81 of 2013, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7.

One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father, Laxhuman Roy.

8.

However, it is made clear that in the event, if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner, despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to forthwith cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after recording reasons. 9.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station through the learned Trial Court. (Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T