Mahesh Suri @ Mahesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76854 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2020 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Mahesh Suri @ Mahesh Mahto Son of Saryug Mahto Resident of VillageMorang, P.S.- Mahindwara, Dist-Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dwij Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2025 Heard Mr. Dwij Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 23.07.2024 in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 155 of 2020, F.I.R. dated 19.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons have intercepted the informant and snatched Rs. 3,000/- from him and also brutally assaulted him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76854 of 2024(5) dt.25-04-2025 2/2 allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and he was absconding from the proceedings and in fact, the petitioner had already filed application for grant of anticipatory bail which suggests that the petitioner has full knowledge about the present case and despite that, he has refused to participate in the proceedings. He further submits that the learned court below has concluded the trial with respect to other co-accused persons.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 155 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T