Mukesh Kumar Mahto @ Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2328 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 58 of 2021
          Arising Out of PS Case No.-64 Year-2019 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur
      ======================================================

1. Mukesh Kumar Mahto @ Mukesh Kumar, aged about 26 years (Male) Son of Mahavir Mahto @ Mahabir Mahto.

2. Ranjeet Mahto, aged about 30 years (Male) Son of Mahavir Mahto @ Mahabir Mahto, Both resident of Village - Kahari Tole, Khajraj, PS- Khanpur, District - Samastipur.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the appellants yesterday,

which was allowed.

3. Heard Binay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The present appeal is directed against the order dated

25.08.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI

cum-Special Judge (POSCO) Samastipur in ABP No. 638 of 2020

by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been

rejected.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2021 dt.09-06-2021

5. The appellants apprehend arrest in connection with

Khanpur PS Case No. 64 of 2019 dated 28.05.2019, instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 366A, 506 and 376(A)(B) of the Indian

Penal Code; 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 and 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

6. The allegation against the appellants, who are

brothers, and their two other brothers, is that they had abducted

the informant from a field and had taken her to the railway station

and made her board the train with co-accused Pappu Sharma and

thereafter the allegation is against the said Pappu Sharma with

regard to him taking her to Delhi and then Punjab and also

committing rape on her.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

they are the agnates of the victim and have been falsely implicated

only on suspicion. It was submitted that even the FIR was not

lodged by the appellants, though the girl is said to have been

abducted on 22.05.2019 and she returned on 27.05.2019 and

thereafter on 28.05.2019, the FIR was lodged. It was submitted

that even as per the FIR, the only role attributed to the appellants

is of abducting her and taking her to the railway station. Learned

counsel submitted that police had submitted charge-sheet with Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2021 dt.09-06-2021

regard to two other brothers of the appellants who are facing trial

and against the appellants it was shown that investigation is still

going on. It was submitted that the informant has also stated in her

deposition in the trial of the other two brothers of the appellants

that even Pappu Sharma was there at the time of abduction and

there were four other persons but she has clearly stated that she

could not recognize them. Learned counsel submitted that the girl

has further deposed that the two brothers against whom the trial

was going on, were her uncles and that due to some

misconception, their name had been given in the FIR, but they

were not involved. It was submitted that the appellants were also

full brothers of the said two accused and because the trial was

going on against those two accused, the informant had only taken

their name. Learned counsel submitted that even the father of the

informant, in his deposition in the said trial has taken the name of

all the four brothers, including the appellants, that they are related

and were not involved. Learned counsel submitted that the doctor,

in the medical report, has indicated that the age of the girl was

between 16-17 years. He submitted that the appellants have no

criminal antecedent.

8. Learned APP submitted that the allegation against the

appellants is that they had abducted her from the field. However, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2021 dt.09-06-2021

he could not controvert the fact that the informant and her father

have given a clean chit to the appellants in the trial which is going

on against the two full brothers of the appellants who are also co-

accused and similarly situated.

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the appellants be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI (POSCO) Act, Samastipur

in Khanpur PS Case No. 64 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid

down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the appellants,

and (ii) that the appellants shall co-operate with the

police/prosecution and the Court. Any violation of the terms and

conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate

shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the appellants, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2021 dt.09-06-2021

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

appellants.

11. The appeal stands allowed in the aforementioned

terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T