Allowed

Manik Mahto @ Manik Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC26 Apr 2022CR. MISC./11335/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna granted regular bail in three connected criminal miscellaneous applications filed against petitioners. The petitioners were accused under various IPC and Arms Act sections in a case involving a land dispute and alleged armed firing. The court observed allegations were general and investigation concluded, directing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to release the petitioners

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on Rs.10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai.

Manik Mahto @ Manik Mandal Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66069 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2021 Thana- KAJRA District- Lakhisarai

¶3

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

¶4

SANTOSH KUMAR Son of Dhanik Mahto Resident of Village- Ramtali Ganj, P.S.- Kajra, District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

with

¶11

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9555 of 2022

¶12

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2021 Thana- KAJRA District- Lakhisarai

¶13

====================================================== SACHIN KUMAR SON OF ANIK MAHTO @ ANIK MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMTALIGANJ P.S.- KAJRA, DISTRICTLAKHISARAI

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶18

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

¶19

with

¶20

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11335 of 2022

¶21

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2021 Thana- KAJRA District- Lakhisarai

¶22

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

¶23

MANIK MAHTO @ MANIK MANDAL Son of Lakhan Mahto Resident of Village- Ramtaliganj, P.S.- Kajara, District - Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶28

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66069 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9555 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11335 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Rina Sinha, APP ======================================================

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66069 of 2021(2) dt.26-04-2022 2/3

¶30

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶31

2 26-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 324, 325, 326, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶33

As per the prosecution case, it is stated by the informant that as a result of land dispute on the informant going over his land to cultivate the same, eleven named accused persons including the three petitioners herein as also seven unknown accused persons came variously armed. As a result of firing resorted to, the father of the informant was shot in his leg. Sanjay Kumar struck the informant on his hand with the sword, Subhash Kumar sustained gun shot injuries and Chandra Shekhar Kumar sustained injuries in his head. The father of the informant was brutally beaten up. Shatrudhan Mahto was referred for further treatment to Patna.

¶34

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. From perusal of the FIR so far as the three petitioners herein are concerned, neither has it been mentioned as to what arms they were carrying nor any overt act has been alleged

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66069 of 2021(2) dt.26-04-2022 3/3

¶36

against them. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners are in custody since 28.6.2021, 28.6.2021 and 14.8.2021 respectively. Investigation in the case has concluded.

¶37

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶38

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners who have remained in custody for 8 months and investigation in the case having concluded, the Court directs the petitioners to be enlarged on bail in connection with Kajra P.S. Case no. 52 of 2021 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Lakhisarai.

¶39

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶40

Bibhash/-

¶41

Manik Mahto @ Manik Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Mahto @ Manik Mandal 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

Sanjay Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kanhaiya Singh @ Kanhaiya Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Narayan Mandal @ Suraj Narayan Mahto Vs the State of Bihar