Allowed

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Mahto v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Sept 2021CR. MISC./26608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application for anticipatory bail for two petitioners facing arrest in a criminal case alleging assault, ordering release on personal bond subject to specific conditions and future furnishing of monetary bail upon restoration of normalcy.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail on personal bond; directed to produce bail bonds with sureties within eight weeks once normalcy restored.

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Mahto Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26608 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Mahto S/O Shanker Mahto R/O Village-Darhia Belar, P.S.-SAMASTIPUR (MUFASSIL), District-Samastipur.

¶5

Virendra Mahto @ Virendra Prasad @ Kappu S/O Late Yogendra Mahto R/O Village-Darhia Belar, P.S.-SAMASTIPUR (MUFASSIL), DistrictSamastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 21-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶13

APP for the State through virtual mode.

¶14

The present matter is being taken up out of turn on the mentioning slip filed on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that the petitioner No.1 is suffering from illness. Let the mentioning slip filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from the date of restoration of normalcy.

¶16

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. case No.09 of 2021

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26608 of 2021(2) dt.21-09-2021 2/3

¶18

registered under Sections 323, 341, 324, 447, 307, 354(B), 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Allegation is that petitioner No.1 assaulted the informant by means of farsa, due to which he sustrained injury on his head and when the son of the informant came to save him, petitioner No.2 assaulted him by means of iron rod, due to which he sustained head injury.

¶20

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation of assault by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is denied by the petitioners. It is a case and counter case between the parties. Free fight is alleged to have taken place. The injuries on the side of the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution. The prosecution has not come with clean hands. There is land dispute between the parties.

¶21

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the complaint case/F.I.R.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26608 of 2021(2) dt.21-09-2021 3/3

¶24

from today, be released on anticipatory bail on their personal bond to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur (Mufassil) P.S. case No.09 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioners will furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶26

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶27

Narendra/-

¶28

U T

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Mahto v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra 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

Smt. Renu Bharat Vs The State of Bihar

Radha Devi Khatri Vs The State of Bihar

Ali Ahmad Vs the State of Bihar

Raju Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ujjawal Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Onkar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar