IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.33098 of 2010
01. PARAS MAHTO @ GAINU MAHTO
02. RANDHIR MAHTO
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR .
-----------
03. 15.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the State.
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners were rejected on 23.12.2008 in Cr. Misc.
No. 44840 of 2008 noticing that the final report was
“true but no clue”, when on a Protect-cum-Complaint
Case, cognizance was taken under Section 302 and
other provisions of the of the Indian Penal Code. It was
also noticed that the petitioners were alleged to be
members of the mob indulging in firing. Seven to eight
firearm injuries were found on the body of the
deceased and head was severed from the body.
The submission that two co-accused have
been granted anticipatory bail subsequently on
3.12.2009 and 7.7.2010 is not considered sufficient
ground to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail. In
any event, the firearm injuries on the deceased and the
head being severed from the body are aspects not
noticed in the orders granting anticipatory bail. That
distinguishes the consideration of the case of the
petitioners.
2
However, this Court finds that one the
orders dated 7.7.2010 is also based on age of 70 years,
suffering from disease under treatment in the hospital.
This Court is not satisfied that sufficient
ground has been made out to reconsider the prayer for
anticipatory bail only on the submission that the
petitioners in paragraph-21 of the application are aged
70 years.
If the petitioners surrender within four
weeks and pray for regular bail, their applications shall
be taken up for consideration on the same date. The
court below shall then proceed to make its own
assessment from the physical appearance of the
petitioners, if they were old aged and infirm, incapable
of any activity of the nature alleged and then proceed
to decide the applications in accordance with law.
The application is dismissed.
P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)