Amit Kumar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 May 2024CR. MISC./25422/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 438(2) CrPC; Sections 302 & 34 IPC; Sections 306 & 34 IPC; cognizance on complaint-cum-protest petition after police final form; Samastipur Complaint Case No. 154 of 2022; Rosera PS Case No. 136 of 2021; kerosene/fire death of complainant's daughter; in-laws of deceased; Patna High Court; Rajesh Kumar Verma, J; bail bond Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all four petitioners in both applications: on arrest or surrender before the trial Court within four weeks of receipt of the order, release on bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions and the Court's additional conditions. ¶¶32

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Samastipur Complaint Case No. 154 of 2022 (registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code), should be released on anticipatory bail.

¶¶26

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the clean antecedent of the petitioners, the police final form in their favour and the cognizance taken on protest, the Court directed that the petitioners in both applications, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the trial Court within four weeks from receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur, where Samastipur Complaint Case No. 154 of 2022 is pending.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail was made subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and to further conditions imposed by the Court: (i) the petitioners shall co-operate in the trial, be properly represented and physically present on dates fixed, failing which on absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason the trial Court shall cancel the bail bond; (ii) if the petitioners tamper with evidence or witnesses, the prosecution may move for cancellation of bail; and (iii) the trial Court shall verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents and cancel the bail bonds if concealment is found, though acceptance of bail bonds shall not be delayed for purposes of verification.

¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED (Patna High Court, 01-05-2024, Rajesh Kumar Verma, J): Ram Briksha Mahto and Anju Devi (Crl. Misc. No. 25120 of 2024) and Amit Kumar Mahto and Chanda Devi (Crl. Misc. No. 25422 of 2024) — whom counsel described as respectively father-, mother-, brother- and sister-in-law of the deceased — apprehended arrest in Samastipur Complaint Case No. 154 of 2022 (Sections 302 and 34 IPC), in which the prosecution alleges Anju Devi poured kerosene on the complainant's daughter and Ram Briksh Mahto set her on fire, the daughter dying during treatment. Counsel submitted that Rosera PS Case No. 136 of 2021 (Sections 306 and 34 IPC) had ended in a police final form in the petitioners' favour and that cognizance under Sections 302/34 IPC was taken by the trial Court only on the complaint-cum-protest petition (order dated 10.10.2023). Considering the clean antecedents, the final form and the protest-petition cognizance, the Court directed release on anticipatory bail on arrest/surrender within four weeks, on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the ACJM, Rosera, Samastipur, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and additional conditions (trial attendance, no tampering with evidence/witnesses, verification of antecedents without delaying acceptance of bail bonds).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25120 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

Ram Briksha Mahto son of Late Ram Subhash Mahto, Vill- Gobindpur, Tola kalamanjar, Ward No. 2, PS- Rosera, Dist- Samastipur.

¶5

Anju Devi wife of Ram Briksha Mahto, Vill- Gobindpur, Tola kalamanjar, Ward No. 2, PS- Rosera, Dist- Samastipur.

¶6

... ... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Laddu Lal Mahto S/o Late Jageshwar Mahto, R/o Ward No. 1, PSVibhitipur, Distt.- Samastipur.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

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

¶12

with

¶13

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25422 of 2024

¶14

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur

¶15

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

¶16

Amit Kumar Mahto Son of Sri Ram Briksha Mahto, Resident of VillageGobindpur, Tola- Kalamanjar, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur (Bihar).

¶17

Chanda Devi Wife of Sri Amit Kumar Mahto, Resident of VillageGobindpur, Tola- Kalamanjar, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur (Bihar).

... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance: (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25120 of 2024) For the Petitioners : Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25422 of 2024) For the Petitioners : Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Mr. Akash Anand, the learned counsel for the

¶23

2 01-05-2024

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25120 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 2/4

¶25

petitioners and Mr. Murli Dhar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶26

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Samastipur Complaint Case No. 154 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

According to prosecution case, Anju Devi poured kerosene on the body of the daughter of the informant and Ram Briksh Mahto set her on fire while Amit Kumar and Chanda Devi caught hold of the informant. It is further alleged that the complainant’s son-in-law Rajeev Mahto and grand son Suraj Kumar informed him about the said occurrence over phone. It is further alleged that complainant’s daughter died during treatment.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case mainly on the ground that petitioners are in-laws of the deceased. He further submits that in Cr. Misc. No. 25120 of 2024, petitioner no. 1 is father in law of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-law of the deceased while in Cr. Misc. No. 25422 of 2024, petitioner no. 3 is brotherin-law of the deceased and petitioner no. 4 is sister-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that on the basis of written application, the Rosera PS Case No. 136 of 2021 was registered

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25120 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 3/4

¶30

under Section 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the police after investigation has submitted the final form in favour of the petitioners and on the basis of the complaint-cum-protest petition, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against these petitioners vide order dated 10.10.2023, under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶32

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioners have clean antecedent, the police after investigation has submitted the final form in favour of the petitioners and on protest cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court, let the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the trial Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur, where the case is pending in connection with Samastipur Complaint Case No. 154 of 2022 , subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25120 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 4/4

¶34

also the following conditions:

¶35

(i). Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the trial Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the trial Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the trial Court.

¶36

(ii). If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶37

(iii). And further condition that the trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the trial Court shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶38

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶39

Shahnawaz/-

¶40

U T

Amit Kumar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukul Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sharwan Ray @ Shrawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Priyanshu Ram @ Priyanshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar