Dismissed¶19

Madan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Mar 2024CR. MISC./15388/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15388 of 2024, decision dated 27-03-2024, Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh (sole judge): regular bail application of Madan Mahto rejected in PS Case No.-224/2023, P.S. Bibhutipur, District Samastipur, charges under sections 302, 120B/34 IPC; alleged taking away of informant's husband on 22.6.2023 with co-accused Santosh Kumar and recovery of dead body from water near railway bridge on 25.6.2023 with multiple injuries; delayed FIR argued by petitioner's counsel; petitioner in custody since 17.10.2023; disposition dismissed, no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the court rejected the petitioner's prayer for regular bail. ¶19

Madan Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15388 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2023 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

Madan Mahto Son of Ganga Mahto Resident of Village-Banchar Tol, P.S.Rosera, Distt.-Samastipur

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, Addl Public Prosecutor Mr. VK Mishra, Advocate ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 27-03-2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶11

Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for

¶12

the offence punishable under sections 302,120B/34 of the Indian

¶13

Penal Code.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, on 22.6.2023 petitioner and co-accused Santosh Kumar took informant’s husband with them on the pretext of playing cards and on 25.6.2023 his dead body was recovered from the water near railway bridge with multiple injuries.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the occurrence. Occurrence of missing is of

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15388 of 2024(3) dt.27-03-2024 2/2

¶17

22.6.2023 and the F.I.R. has been lodged after delay on 25.6.2023 without any explanation which renders the entire prosecution case doubtful. Petitioner claims clean antecedent. He is in custody since 17.10.2023.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State and the informant oppose the prayer for bail. They submit that from perusal of the FIR it is clear that it was petitioner and his accomplice Santosh Kumar who took the deceased with them and thereafter his dead body was recovered from the water with multiple injuries, as such, petitioner cannot be absolved from the allegation of commission of murder of informant’s husband.

¶19

Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶20

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶21

Shashi

¶22

U T

Madan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Santra Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Jai Prakash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Suman Kumar Singh @ Suman Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Dinesh Ram Vs The State of Bihar