Dismissed

Dwarika Mahto v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Mar 2022CR. MISC./16553/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail arising from a criminal case under various IPC sections, citing an erroneous statement in the petition regarding the petitioners' criminal antecedents and finding their explanation unsatisfactory.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Interim order recalled. Petitioners may seek bail on surrender with full disclosure.

Dwarika Mahto Vs the State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16553 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2020 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

DWARIKA MAHTO SON OF LATE VEERAKSHA MAHTO Resident of Village - Begiya Tola, Fulwariya Ward No.03, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran.

¶5

JUGESH MAHTO @ YOGESH MAHTO @ YOGENDRA MAHTO Son of Lalu Mahto Resident of Village - Begiya Tola, Fulwariya Ward No.03, P.S.Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran.

¶6

AWADHESH MAHTO Son of Lalu Mahto Resident of Village - Begiya Tola, Fulwariya Ward No.03, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran.

¶7

AKHILESH KUMAR @ AKHILESH MAHTO Son of Dwarika Mahto Resident of Village - Begiya Tola, Fulwariya Ward No.03, P.S.- Sugauli, Distt.- East Champaran.

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. APP For the Informant : Mr. Zainul Abedin, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 10-03-2022 Heard Mr. Patanjali Rishi, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Zainul Abedin for the informant. The State is represented by the learned APP.

¶14

The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 400 of 2020 dated 11.08.2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

For the reason of an erroneous statement having been made in paragraph-3 of the bail petition regarding the criminal

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16553 of 2021(5) dt.10-03-2022 2/2

¶17

antecedents of the petitioners and the explanation furnished by the petitioners for the same being unsatisfactory, I am not inclined to entertain this application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

The interim order, if any, is hereby recalled.

¶19

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶20

However, if the petitioners surrender before the court

¶21

below and seek bail with full disclosure of all facts, their application shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the fact that the present petition on their behalf has not been entertained.

¶22

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶23

krishna/-

¶24

U T

Dwarika Mahto v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Pandey Vs the State of Bihar

Kudus Miyan @ Md. Kudus Vs The State of Bihar

Pulasth Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Vivek Kumar Deo Vs the State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Mahto Vs the State of Bihar