Rajesh Singh @ Tuntun Singh @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8478 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2019 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAJESH SINGH @ TUNTUN SINGH @ RAJESH KUMAR S/o Kapildeon Singh Resident of Village- Andaul, P.S.- Baruraj, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 24-06-2020 The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, the learned APP appearing for the State. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Baruaraj P.S. Case No. 138 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation against the petitioner is of assaulting the son of the informant on his head by means of 'kulhari'(hatchet) resulting in the son of the informant receiving grievous injuries.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8478 of 2020(3) dt.24-06-2020 2/2 The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is having a clean antecedent. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials available on record as also the case diary in question from which it is apparent that the son of the informant died on account of injuries inflicted upon him by the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. The complicity of the petitioner is writ large from the records. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been alleged to have engaged in a heinous crime of killing the son of the informant, I do not find any merit in the present case, hence, it is dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U T