IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Crl. Appl. (DB) No. 854 of 2004
1. Dhaneshwar Mahto
2. Ratan Mahto
3. Govinda Mahto ... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .. ... ... Respondents
...........
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
.........
For the Petitioner : M/s K. P. Deo, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. K. K. Mishra
..........
I. A. (Cr.) No. 302 of 2011.
10/07.03
. 2011. Heard both sides.
Accused No. 1, Patal Mahto and accused No. 5, Mathan Mahto
have been granted bail by the order dated 19th April, 2010, in their
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 996 of 2004, by a Division Bench of this Court.
It would appear from a reading of the impugned judgment that the injury
which resulted in the death of the deceased were caused basically by
these two accused, Patal Mahto and Mathan Mahto, who were armed with
‘Tangi’.
Appellant No. 2, Dhaneshwar Mahto, Appellant No. 3, Ratan
Mahto and appellant No. 4, Govind Mahto are said to have been armed
with lathi and arrow. Their assaults are largely upon the informant, who
was an injured witness.
Considering the fact that the main assailants who caused
death have already been released on bail, as pointed out here-in-above,
we have not been shown why bail should be denied to the present three
appellants whose role in the episode is comparatively less.
Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellants, named above, are directed to be released on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal, in furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Additional Sessions Judge IV, F.T.C., Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 458 of
2001.
I. A. No. 302 of 2011, is disposed of,.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
Sandeep/ (R. R. Prasad, J.)