Arvind Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18810 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2020 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

Arvind Singh Son Of Rajendra Singh Resident Of Village- Patraha, P.S. Choutham, District-Khagaria 2.

Laxman Singh Son Of Upendra Singh Resident Of Village- Patraha, P.S. Choutham, District-Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal For the Informant Mr. Bisheshwar Ram For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 05-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Chautam P.S. Case no. 149 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 302, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, when the father of the informant was going towards Litchi orchard, FIR named accused persons including the petitioners started to abuse him and 3-4 unknown miscreants opened fire on him due to which he succumbed to the injuries.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18810 of 2021(3) dt.05-04-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Informant is not the eye witness of the prosecution case. Petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that bail prayer of co-accused Ramchandra Singh and Saurabh have been rejected by an another co-ordiante Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.7.2021 who have given fire shot to the deceased from back. Petitioner has given fire shot to the deceased from front. The complicity the the petitioner as main accused is appearing from the audio recording which is mentioned in para 80 of the case diary.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is direct allegation of firing shot to the father of the informant, who succumbed to the injuries, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U