IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (SJ) No.921 of 2011
Dukhan Mahto
Versus
The State Of Bihar
-----------
2/ 18.8.2011 This appeal shall be heard. Call for the lower court
records.
As regards prayer for bail, the appellant’s prayer, it is
submitted, has been refused as he was in custody from before the
date of judgment. The appellant has been convicted under sections
148, 323 and 324 IPC and has been directed to suffer RI for two
years under sections 148 and 324 IPC.
Offences for which the appellant has been convicted, were
bailable but, only because the appellant was in custody, the court
below, probably, considering the provision of section 389(3)(b)
Cr.P.C., appears refusing the prayer for bail.
The provisions of law are not meant to impose hardship
upon the persons and the interpretation has to be harmonious so as
to making the provisions practicable as also sound and reasonable.
In an offence under sections 323 and 324 IPC no one can be refused
bail on account of the fact that he has been in custody from before
the date of judgment but, going by the technicalities of law, the trial
judge was refusing the prayer for bail to the appellant. I, at least,
have not appreciated the approach of the learned trial court in
refusing the prayer for bail.
In the facts and circumstances, during the pendency of the
2
appeal, let appellant Dukhan Mahto be released on bail on
furnishing personal recognition bond of Rs.500/- without any surety
to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC – VI,
Sitamarhi in S.T. No. 515 of 2004 / 7 of 2008.
Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)