Dularchand Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81050 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2019 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== DULARCHAND MAHTO, Son of Viranchi Mahto, Resident of Village - Kakan, P.S. - Jamui, Distt. - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(B), 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to FIR, first firing was made by co-accused Subhash Mahto which hit at the chest of the son of the informant. The second firing was made by Saudagar Mahto causing injury at the abdomen of the same person and third firing was made by the petitioner causing injury at the side of the abdomen.

The postmortem report would reveal that four firearm injuries were found by the Doctor. One at epigastric region. Another just below umbilicus. On dissection spleen, kidney

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81050 of 2019(3) dt.18-03-2020 2/2 were found damaged.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses have stated before the police that firing made by Subhash Mahto has already killed the deceased and thereafter firing by others does not matter, rather false allegation is there, just to pressurize the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 08.04.2019.

Considering the nature of allegation and material available on the record, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present in connection with Jamui Police Station Case No. 51 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui/successor court. Hence, prayer for bail is refused.

If the trial of the case is not concluded within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by the learned court below, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the court below itself who shall pass a reasoned order.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- U T