Satrughan Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14418 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2020 Thana- SIKRAUL District- Buxar ====================================================== Satrughan Singh, aged about 51 years, Male Son of Late Parmeshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Bhadar, P.S.- Sikraul, District - Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Informant :
Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Sunil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-01-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Sikraul P.S. Case No. 123 of 2020 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 285, 436, 342, 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel submits that the informant is the brother of the injured person who has been named in the FIR, on account of injuries suffered due to burn, the name of the petitioner has been wrongly rooted. He further submits that as per the opinion of the doctor the burn is of simple in nature and the petitioner deserved to be granted anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the co-accused regular bail application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14418 of 2021(3) dt.11-01-2022 2/2 has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench. He further submits that the injured was treated at Varanasi and 60% burns have been found on the body of the injured Ramji Singh. There is a specific act alleged against the petitioner and therefore does not deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
I have considered the submissions. From the injury report it is apparent that there are 22 burn injuries on the body and there is specific allegation as against the petitioner and coaccused bail application has already been rejected, in view thereof no case for anticipatory bail is made out, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application is dismissed.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Anand Kr.
U T