Allowed

Raja Ram Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC29 Jan 2016CR. MISC./48946/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral order, the Patna High Court granted bail to Raja Ram Mahto in a case under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The court noted the petitioner was not in the FIR but named by co-accused in a confessional statement, and allowed bail with conditions requiring sureties and immovable property.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of similar amount.

Raja Ram Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.48946 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -21 Year- 2010 Thana -BIBHUTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Raja Ram Mahto Son of Jageshwar Mahto, Resident of Village - Dhania Pakahi, P.S. - Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sangita Sharma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 3 29-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 21/2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶3

The petitioner is not named in the FIR and from perusal of the impugned order it reveals that his name has come in the confessional statement of co-accused Ganesh Mahto and Sikandar Mahto.

¶4

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2015 but he has not been put on T.I.P., nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and co-accused Ganesh Mahto who has confessed has already been allowed bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 8058/2011 and

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48946 of 2015 (3) dt.29-01-2016

¶6

2/2

¶7

further other co-accused Ashok Rai has also been allowed bail and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned A.P.P. does not dispute.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that Ganesh Mahto has already been allowed bail who has named the petitioner in his confessional statement, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Rosera, Samastipur in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 21/2010, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

¶9

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.)

¶10

Rakhi

¶11

U T

Raja Ram Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram Mahto 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

Shyamdeo Yadav @ Shyam Deo Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramashish Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Tufani Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Mahendra Paswan and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Arvind Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar