Subodh Singh @ Subodh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7610 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2021 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

SUBODH SINGH @ SUBODH KUMAR SINGH son of Gauri Singh Resident of Village- Bakan, P.S.- Phesar, Dist- Aurangabad. 2.

Mithun Singh @ Mithun Kumar Singh Son of Gauri Singh Resident of Village- Bakan, P.S.- Phesar, Distt- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. He is also directed to make necessary correction in the bail petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 353, 307, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered in connection with Rafiganj P.S.Case No. 216 of 2021.

As per allegation made in the FIR, the named accused persons attacked the police party while their three tractors loaded with illegally mined sand were seized by the police. The accused persons obstructed and prevented the police from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7610 of 2022(2) dt.29-08-2022 2/2 discharging their duties. The accused persons also opened fire on them. The allegation against the petitioners is that they came by a Scorpio vehicle and made pressure upon the police personnel to release the seized tractors.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the alleged tractors were not belonging to petitioner no.1. He has submitted further that the only allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that he tried to remove the tractors. Considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, they do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected. They are directed to surrender before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T