High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Pratap Mahto &Amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar on 30 June, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Pratap Mahto &Amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar on 30 June, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Cr.Misc. No.15837 of 2010
                1. PRATAP MAHTO SON OF SRI NEWASH MAHTO
                2. JAYRAM MAHTO SON OF BHUNESHWAR MAHTO
                3. KAMLESH MAHTO SON OF RAM MANGAL MAHTO
                4. SANTOSH MAHTO SON OF RAM MANDAL MAHTO
                5. RAMU KUMAR @ DHARMENDRA KUMAR MAHTO SON
                   OF RAM MANGAL MAHTO
                6. LAL BABU MAHTO SON OF SURAJ MAHTO
                7. KANUNI MAHTO SON OF SURAJ MAHTO, ALL
                   RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARIYA, P.S. SHAHPUR,
                   DISTRICT BHOJPUR -- PETITIONERS.
                                            Versus
                             STATE OF BIHAR--OPP. PARTY.
                                         -----------

3/ 30-06-2010 Heard the parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

instituted under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3 (1) (x) of

the SC/ST ( P.O.A. ) Act.

It is submitted that though the petitioners are

named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1, as accused, but there

is absolutely no allegation relating to any offence alleged to

have been committed by the petitioners under the

provisions of section 3 of the SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act, save and

except that the informant is said to be the member of the

scheduled caste. In that view of the matter the present

petition under section 438 Cr. P.C. is maintainable.

It is further submitted that except the offence

under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, all other

offences are either bailable or minor. In the F.I.R., vide

Annexure-1, specific allegation of assault by rami and
2

spade is only against petitioner no.1, Pratap Mahto. So far

as other petitioners are concerned, the allegations are

general and omnibus in nature against them.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer

for anticipatory bail made on behalf of petitioner no.1,

Pratap Mahto, is rejected. He must surrender in the court

below within a period of four weeks from today and seek

regular bail, if so advised.

However, so far as petitioners no. 2 to 7, namely,

Jayram Mahto,Kamlesh Mahto, Santosh Mahto, Ramu

Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Mahto, Lal Babu Mahto and

Kanuni Mahto, are concerned, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, in the event of their arrest or

surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks

from today, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing

bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the

like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in Shahpur P.S. Case No. 46 of

2010, subject to condition as laid down under section

438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

BTiwary                           ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J)