Allowed

Krishna Mohan Mahto @ Krishna MAHTOand Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC11 Apr 2016CR. MISC./6818/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to petitioners charged with rape under Section 376(D) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, observing they were not named in the FIR or statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and that only a co-accused was alleged to have committed the rape.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bagaha, West

Krishna Mohan Mahto @ Krishna MAHTOand Anr. Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6818 of 2016 (3) dt.11-04-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6818 of 2016

¶4

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -110 Year- 2015 Thana -LAUKARIYA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== 1. Krishna Mohan @ Krishna Mahto Son of Hariraj Mahto, 2. Baijnath Mahto Son of Kishun Mahto, Both resident of Village- Kala Bairiya, P.S.- Laukariya, District- West Champaran..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar 1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 3 11-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the Sate. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners annexing the petition and affidavit filed by the informant and victim. Let the same be kept on record.

¶5

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Laukariya P.S. Case No. 110 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

¶6

Allegedly, one Prem Mahto along with two unknown caught the daughter of the informant and two unknown caught hold the hand and leg and Prem Mahto committed rape with the daughter of the informant. During investigation Prem Mahto stated the name of the petitioners and further the petitioners also stated

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6818 of 2016 (3) dt.11-04-2016

¶8

regarding his involvement in the crime.

¶9

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioners are neither named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the alleged statement of co-accused and of the petitioners made before the Police have got no evidentiary value in the eye of law, the petitioners without any legal and tangible material are suffering in custody since 14.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 respectively, as per allegation, only co-accused Prem Mahto has committed rape and not the two unknown, the petitioners have not been put on test identification parade and as such they deserve sympathetic consideration to which learned APP after going through the case diary fairly submits that the petitioners have not been put on test identification parade and their names have transpired in the statement of co-accused.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that the petitioners are neither named in the first information report nor in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and further allegation of committing the rape is against co-accused and not against the unknown, and as such, the petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6818 of 2016 (3) dt.11-04-2016

¶12

two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bagaha, West Champaran in connection with Laukariya P.S. Case No. 110 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioners shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on their part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioners from privilege of bail.

¶13

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)

¶14

avin/-

¶15

U T

Krishna Mohan Mahto @ Krishna MAHTOand Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Mohan Mahto @ Krishna MAHTOand Anr. 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

Avinash Kumar Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Krishna Kumar Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Amrendra Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Vishal Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Jailal Pandit @ Jaglal Pandit @ Master Vs The State Of Bihar

Nisha Devi Vs The State Of Bihar