Birju Kumar Mahto @ Birju Mahto vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2813 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33961 of 2020
            Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2020 Thana- SIMRI District- Darbhanga
     ======================================================

1. Birju Kumar Mahto @ Birju Mahto, aged about 22 years (Male).

2. Baiju Mahto aged about 34 years (Male), Both sons of Ramjatan Mahto @ Santani Mahto, resident of village- Simri, P.S.- Simri, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

     For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Baidya Nath Prasad, Advocate
     For the State            :        Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Baidya Nath Prasad, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Ms. Nirmala Kumari, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Simri PS Case No. 28 of 2020 dated 15.02.2020, instituted

under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 30(a)

of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they

were also associated in the business of manufacturing and

selling fake toddy and two co-accused persons were caught and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33961 of 2020 dt.29-06-2021

there was recovery from the house of Manoj Mahto, Sonu

Mahto and the petitioners are brothers of Manoj Mahto.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

they are living separately and also have separate mess and

business from their brother Manoj Mahto for the last five years,

which has been also certified by the local Mukhiya. It was

submitted that only because they are related to Manoj Mahto,

they have also been made accused. Learned counsel submitted

that in the FIR itself it has been stated that two persons were

seen at the spot and tried to run away and both were caught

which shows that the petitioners were not present at the spot

also as both the persons who were said to have been present at

the spot and had tried to escape were caught by the police. It

was submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

6. Earlier, the Court had asked learned APP to obtain

up-to-date legible photo copy of the entire case diary as also the

specific report on the point as to whether the petitioners have

separate residence and mess from Manoj Mahto, the brother of

the petitioners and one of the persons who was apprehended on

the spot. Learned APP submitted that she has got the copy of the

case diary as also the report in which it has been stated that after

partition the brothers are living separately and have also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33961 of 2020 dt.29-06-2021

separate mess. However, she submitted that the full brother of

the petitioners and their nephew, who were caught, had stated

that the petitioners were also involved in the manufacturing of

toddy. On a specific query of the Court as to whether any other

material or witness has stated with regard to the petitioners

being involved, learned APP submitted that no other witness has

stated with regard to the role of the petitioners in manufacturing

and selling of toddy.

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, the petitioners 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

Excise Act, Darbhanga, in Simri PS Case No. 28 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 petitioners, (ii) that the

petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond with regard to

good behaviour of the petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners

shall also give an undertaking to the Court that they shall not Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33961 of 2020 dt.29-06-2021

indulge in any illegal/criminal activity, act in violation of any

law/statutory provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence

the witnesses. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the

bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of their bail

bonds. The petitioners shall cooperate in the case and be present

before the Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or

being absent on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause,

shall also 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

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

take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners.

9. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T