Partly allowed

Ram Narayan Mahto and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC30 Oct 2015CR. MISC./30515/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners in a kidnapping and abduction case while rejecting the application of the petitioner who had allegedly removed a minor girl without coercing others into a marriage.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Petitioners 1 and 3 upon furnishing bond; Application of Petitioner 2 rejected.

Ram Narayan Mahto and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30515 of 2015 (3) dt.30-10-2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30515 of 2015

¶4

	Arising Out of PS.Case No. -132 Year- 2015 Thana -BIDUPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== 1. Ram Narayan Mahto S/o Hiralal Mahto 2. Laxmi Devi W/o Ram Narayan Mahto Both the petitioners are resident of village–Pakauli, P.S. Bidpur, District– Vaishali. 3. Shivchandra Rai S/o Late Nanhku Rai R/o Village - Rajasan, P.S. - Bidupur, Distt.- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ======================================================
	Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradip Nr. Kumar (App) ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
3	30-10-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit seeking correction of the address of petitioner no. 1 and
	2.
	In the said supplementary affidavit, the correct address of petitioner no. 1 and 2 is mentioned as resident of village– Pakauli, P.S. Bidpur, District–Vaishali. In the light of the supplementary affidavit filled by the petitioners, let the address of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 be corrected as mentioned therein. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶5

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30515 of 2015 (3) dt.30-10-2015

¶7

Bidupur P.S. Case No. 132 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation leveled against the petitioners is farfetched. However, after perusing the case diary, learned counsel for the State submits that in paragraph-22 of the case diary, it has come that the victim was a minor girl aged between 14-17 years and she was taken away by Laxmi Devi wife of petitioner no.1, namely, Ram Narayan Mahato and she was handed over to Dilip Kumar, with whom she married subsequently. So far as petitioner no. 1 and 3 is concerned, there is no material in the case diary to implicate them.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner no.2. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application as against petitioner no. 2 is rejected.

¶10

So far as petitioner nos .1, and 3, are concerned, there is no material in the case diary to implicate them, let the petitioner no.1,namely, Ram Narayan Mahto and petitioner no. 3, namely, Shivchandra Ra, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30515 of 2015 (3) dt.30-10-2015

¶12

furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 132 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶13

However, it is made clear that if the petitioner no. 2 surrender and seek regular bail within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the Court below may consider the regular bail application of the petitioner no. 2 on the same day without being prejudiced by the present order.

¶14

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶15

Jagdish/U T

Ram Narayan Mahto and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Narayan Mahto and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajendra Singh @ Sukho Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Jan Mohammad Mia Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Jahangir Miyan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Altamas @ Bablu @ Md. Altamas Shahin Vs The State Of Bihar

Bablu Poddar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.