Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10349 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2016 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU SINGH S/o Radha Krishna Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Kathiya, P.S.- Muffasil (Lakho O.P.), Distt- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-08-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through video conferencing.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Town Police Station Case No. 307 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 28.06.2016, the informant has found his elder brother, sister-in-law and nephew murdered by cutting their necks by means of sharp cutting weapon at the roof of their house. It has further been alleged in the First Information Report that the informant has suspicion against Gopal Mandal, Raju Jha, Murari Singh and Pappu Singh, who had threatened to kill the elder brother of the informant due to some land dispute.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10349 of 2020(5) dt.24-08-2020 2/3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion due to the fact that the petitioner had talked with the co-accused persons. He further submits that except this, there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioner in the present offence.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that in course of investigation, it has come, in the case diary, that the petitioner was in regular contact with the accused persons and in the intervening night of 27/28-06-2016, the location of the mobile phone of the petitioner was found within a radius of 1 km. of the place of occurrence. He also submits that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner had a talk with the co-accused on his mobile phone. He further submits that the anticipatory bail application of similarly situated coaccused Abhishek Kumar has been rejected by this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against Abhishek Kumar is not similar to that of the petitioner.

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that in course

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10349 of 2020(5) dt.24-08-2020 3/3 of investigation, on the basis of the electronic evidence, the petitioner's name has transpired in the offence, the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Abhishek Kumar has been rejected by this Court and all other accused persons have been granted regular bail in this matter, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √