Patna High Court - Orders
Prabhu Mahto & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 7 December, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.42285 of 2009
1.PRABHU MAHTO S/O late Lohit Mahto @ Lobhi
Mahto
2.Vijayee Mahto S/O late Lohit Mahto @ Lobhi
Mahto
3.Deo Nandan Mahto S/O Sri Pukar Mahto,
All R/O village Nawada Kothi, P.S. Bheldi, District
Saran at Chapra.
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
2 7/12/2009Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
The petitioners, facing prosecution for the offence under sections 148, 149, 380 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, have a defence that since the police had found the case to be false, there was no need for them to surrender before the court even if the court below had taken cognizance on protest petition filed by the complainant way back in the year 1997. Counsel also proceeds that since the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was pending before this Court till 2005, the petitioners surrendering in the year 2009 could not in any way question their credential with regard to grant of their bail specially when the co-accused Hikayat Mahto has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 11.7.2006 in Cr. Misc. No.25964/2006 and other also by the court below itself by order dated 1.12.2008.
In the opinion of this Court, the over simplistic 2 argument of counsel for the petitioners is only to be noted for its being rejected. The petitioners, being named accused in a complaint case instituted as F.I.R. u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., when cognizance was taken against them on 28.5.1999 on a protest petition, had infact moved this Court, after absconding for a period of six years in the year 2005 by filing their anticipatory bail application which were rejected by this Court in between 22.4.2005 to 25.7.2005 and yet it had against taken them a period of than four years in surrendering in this case as would be evident from the statement in paragraph 11 of the bail application stating that they had surrendered only on 12.10.2009.
Such conduct of the petitioners would definitely go to show that they had deliberately avoided their presence before the trial court and thus their plea for bail on the ground that they had gone to Punjab for earning their livelihood does not inspire confidence as with regard to absconding of the petitioners nearly 17 years approximately.
The next plea that since others have been granted bail, which in turned would entitle the petitioners for being released on bail again suffers from a deliberate ignorance that co-accused Hikayat Mahto had surrendered on 27.3.2006, unlike the petitioners in the year 2009 and was granted bail by this Court on 11.7.2006. On the other 3 hand there is no explanation as to why the petitioners had remained absconding even after rejection of their prayer for anticipatory bail way back in 2005.
That being so, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)