Sahil Kumar Singh @ Shahil Singh @ Chhotu Singh @ Shahil v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11587 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2023 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan ====================================================== Sahil Kumar Singh @ Shahil Singh @ Chhotu Singh @ Shahil S/o Late Digamber Kumar Singh R/o Village- Ramnagar, P.S.- Siwan Town, DistrictSiwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satyendra Rai For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 213 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 386, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-IX, Siwan.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant alleged that on 26.08.2023 at 22:30 hrs, when his son Ravi Ranjan was coming back from Siwan Railway Station to relieve some relatives at station and while he arrived at Renua Pul some people caught hold to the informant's son and demanded Rs. 50,000/- and, thereafter, it is further alleged that all the named co-accused were assaulted the informant's son which was disclosed by the victim to his father.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11587 of 2024(2) dt.12-03-2024 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that due to previous enmity the petitioner and other co-accused persons have been made accused in the present case. The petitioner has three criminal antecedents as mentioned in para3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of the offence and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T