Patna High Court - Orders
Pintu Kumar Ram @ Pintu Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2021
Author: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5751 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2019 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Pintu Kumar Ram @ Pintu Ram, Male, aged 22 years, Son of Parmeshwar
Ram, Resident of Village Pithauri, P.S. Baniyapur, District Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 18-03-2021Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binay Krishna, the learned Special P.P. The appellant filed this appeal under Section 14(A)2 SC/ST (POA) Act against the order dated 27.11.2019, passed in ABP No.3440 of 2019, by which the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Saran rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in Baniyapur P.S. Case No.231 of 2019, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant, Md. Azad disclosed in his statement, on the basis of which, the FIR has been registered, that Raju Nat and Videsh Nat came to his house and asked his brother, Naushad Alam to accompany them to village Pithauri Nand Lal Tola for loading animals on the vehicle. His brother accompanied Raju Nat Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5751 of 2019(5) dt.18-03-2021 2/3 and Videsh Nat to village Pithauri Nand Lal Tola. When they reached in the village Pithauri Nand Lal Tola, Shankar Ram, Raju Kumar Ram, Budhram Ram, Dahari Ram, Satyanarayan Ram, Bhola Ram, Patel Sah, Nand Kishore, the son of the present Mukhiya and 50 to 100 more persons of village Pithauri Nand Lal Tola came there and assaulted his brother Naushad Alam, Raju Nat and Videsh Nat. All the three died on account of assault made by the villagers of Pithauri Nand Lal Tola.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR. The name of the appellant surfaced in the case during the course of investigation in para 49 of the case diary. The Dy.S.P. supervised the case and mentioned the name of the appellant and others who participated in mob lynching of three persons on the allegation that they were cattle lifters. It is further submitted that Baniyapur P.S. Case No.230 of 2019 was registered on the statement of Budhram. The appellant is a student and he has got no criminal antecedent.
The learned Special P.P. however, vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submits that the mob lynched three persons on the allegation that they were cattle lifters. During the course of investigation, the name of the appellant also transpired. The offence is of very serious nature, therefore, the appellant does not deserve anticipatory bail. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5751 of 2019(5) dt.18-03-2021 3/3 Having considered the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record, it transpires that the informant whose brother was also lynched by the mob disclosed that Raju Nat and Videsh Nat took his brother, Naushad Alam for loading the cattle, but when Naushad Alam, Raju Nat and Videsh Nat arrived at village Pithauri Nand Lal Tola, all the villagers including the present Mukhiya, Sarpanch, namely, Raju Kumar Rai and others assembled there, assaulted his brother and two others indiscriminately causing the death of all the three persons on the spot. During the course of investigation, the involvement of the appellant also surfaced. The offence is very serious in nature and it relates to mob lynching of three persons on petty allegation of cattle lifters.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is rejected.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/-
U T