Dharmpal Mahto @ Dharmpal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.693 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2023 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Dharmpal Mahto @ Dharmpal Kumar, aged about 30 years, Gender-Male, Son of Surendra Prasad, Resident of Village- Amain, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 151 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307, 302, 120(B), 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As the prosecution case, all the accused persons including the petitioner abused and assaulted the informant and his family members with iron rod and deadly weapon.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. He further submits that the due to minor dispute raised during playing cricket among players,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.693 of 2024(7) dt.23-08-2024 2/2 informant and his nephew were assaulted and his son was killed by accused persons. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposes the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the FIR, seizure list, case diary, postmortem report and also perused the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions JudgeIInd, Jehanabad, it appears that petitioner is named in the FIR. There is specific allegation of assault to the informant is against the petitioner by means of iron rod. Further there is also specific allegation of firing against co-accused Dharamveer Mahto. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as involvement of the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.

U T