Rinku Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1551 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -50 Year- 2015 Thana -AJIMABAD District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Rinku Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Ayodhya Singh, Resident of Village- Bargaon, Police Station- Azimabad, District Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with Azimabad P.S. Case no.50 of 2015 registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R. itself, the informant has made specific accusation that in his presence the petitioner gave fire-shot on the back of father of the informant and thereafter other accused also fired on his back, whereas during post-mortem examination, no entry wound was found on the back of the deceased and, as such, he tried to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1551 of 2016 (3) dt.16-02-2016 2/2 persuade the Court that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He accepts that in the F.I.R. there is also allegation that one person opened fire, but nothing has been indicated that on which part of the body, the bullet hit. He further submits that the deceased was a veteran criminal and there is every likelihood that the deceased might have been killed somewhere else. He submits that no one had seen the occurrence.
In the F.I.R., there is specific accusation against the petitioner. At the time of hearing of anticipatory bail, it would be difficult to examine the case in such manner, particularly in view of specific accusation in the F.I.R. itself. I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U