Munna Mahto vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2441 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35549 of 2020
        Arising Out of PS Case No.-116 Year-2020 Thana- MANJHAGADH District- Gopalganj
      ======================================================

1. Munna Mahto @ Munna Chauhan, aged about 34 years, Gender-Male, Son of Baliram Mahto @ Baliram Chauhan.

2. Tunna Mahto, aged about 25 years, Gender-Male, Son of Baliram Mahto @ Baliram Chauhan.

3. Oshihar Mahto, aged about 18 years, Gender-Male, Son of Naresh Mahto.

4. Sahodara Devi, aged about 52 years, Gender- Female Wife of Baliram Mahto @ Baliram Chauhan.

5. Sandhya Devi, aged about 40 years, Gender-Female, Wife of Naresh Mahto.

All are residence of - Sareya Akhtiyar, PS - Manjhagadh, District - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

      For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
      For the State           :       Mr Sanjay Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Additional Public

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

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Manjhagadh PS Case No. 116 of 2020 dated 03.06.2020, instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35549 of 2020 dt.21-06-2021

4. The allegation against the petitioners is of assault on

the informant and his family members.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

specific overt act alleged is against other co-accused and not the

petitioners and with regard to petitioner no. 1, there is an

allegation that he had assaulted on the head of the informant.

Learned counsel submitted that the allegation is general and

omnibus against the other petitioners and that they have no

criminal antecedent. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR has

been lodged after three days for which there is no explanation. It

was submitted that though one person has also died, but even the

assault on her is attributed to another co-accused. It was submitted

that in the FIR itself, it has been stated that there was land dispute

for which there was Section 144 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 promulgated and it is alleged that the accused

were trying to erect some structure over the said land. Learned

counsel submitted that the Court may, at least, consider the prayer

sympathetically with regard to petitioners no. 2 to 5, since against

them the allegation is general and omnibus.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners are also

said to have assaulted the victims. However, it was not

controverted that against petitioners no. 2 to 5, the allegation is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35549 of 2020 dt.21-06-2021

general and omnibus and only against petitioner no. 1, it is

specific of having assaulted on the head of the informant which

has also been corroborated in the injury report, as has been noticed

by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, V,

Gopalganj in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1004 of 2020 dated

09.09.2020 by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners

has been rejected.

7. 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, petitioner no. 2 namely, Tunna Mahto;

petitioner no. 3 namely, Oshihar Mahto; petitioner no. 4 namely,

Sahodara Devi and petitioner no. 5 namely, Sandhya Devi, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Gopalganj in Manjhagadh PS Case No. 116 of 2020, subject to the

conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a

close relative of the said petitioners, (ii) that the said petitioners

and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with

regard to good behaviour of the said petitioners and that the said Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35549 of 2020 dt.21-06-2021

petitioners 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.

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

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the said

petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take

immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing

to the concerned petitioners.

9. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

10. The prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner no. 1

namely, Munna Mahto @ Munna Chauhan, stands rejected.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T