Vijay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12444 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2019 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

VIJAY SINGH SON OF LATE SHIWAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- WAR KHAS, P.S- MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD 2.

RAMDHYAN SINGH SON OF LATE SHIWAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- WAR KHAS, P.S- MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD 3.

SHIVDHYAN SINGH SON OF LATE SHIWAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- WAR KHAS, P.S- MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD 4.

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH SON OF RAMDHYAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- WAR KHAS, P.S- MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukul Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-10-2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4. Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, the application of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 is dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner no. 2 apprehends his arrest in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 379/34 of the I.P.C. pending

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12444 of 2021(2) dt.25-10-2021 2/2 in the Court of C.J.M., Aurangabad.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Further he contended that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is named in the first information report. There is direct allegation of assault by means of iron rod at the head of the informant. Hence, the petitioner no.2 Ramdhyan Singh does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 2. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner no. 2 is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T