Raushan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83405 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2012 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== RAUSHAN MAHTO S/o Faudar Mahto R/o village- Samsa, P.S.- Nawkothi, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shashi Dhar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-12-2019 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 478 of 2019 arising out of Nawkothi P.S. Case No. 06 of 2012, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Allegation as per F.I.R. is that petitioner and other accused persons came on different motorcycles and intercepted the informant and her son and on the order of one Hema Mourya, co-accused Ranjit Mahto and and Niranjan Mahto fired on her son causing his death and the accused persons also tried to drag the dead body of the son of informant. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of firing against the petitioner and he was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83405 of 2019(2) dt.16-12-2019 2/2 only the member of mob and he has been in judicial custody since 04.02.2019 Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that all the accused persons including petitioner intercepted the informant and his son and apart from that petitioner is accused in five other cases and one of them is also under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and three of them is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, once charge is framed, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T