Janardan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21737 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2017 Thana- DHANGAI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Janardan Mahto S/o Jamuna Mahto, R/o Village- Udiyan, Tola Kamariaon, P.S.- Tiyar, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 29-06-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 69 of 2017, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The allegation is regarding the accused persons having intercepted the informant and the deceased and thereafter, the petitioner is said to have fired resulting in the death of the deceased.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is not the eye-witness and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the co-accused person has been granted bail by
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21737 of 2018(4) dt.29-06-2018 2/2 this Court by an order dated 22.03.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7699 of 2018.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case diary as also the records and I find that there is specific allegation against the petitioner herein of having assaulted the deceased by gunshot firing resulting in his death. As far as the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2018 passed by this Court is concerned, the petitioner of the said case was not the one who had fired but the petitioner herein is the main assailant, hence, I do not find any merit in the present case, accordingly, the same is rejected. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) ajay gupta/- U T