Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11830/2022bail rejected

Sanoj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2023-02-07Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11830 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2021 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia ====================================================== SANOJ KUMAR SINGH Son Of Sri Bijli Singh Resident Of VillageDimiya, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar Anand, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-02-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No. 356 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 279, 337, 427 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the police attempted to stop a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. BR11PC3897, the driver did not stop and in rash manner, he dismantled the barricading and also dashed a constable named Chandrika

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11830 of 2022(8) dt.07-02-2023 2/2 Prasad Yadav who lost his life in course of treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle. He is son of the owner and it was the reason that he has falsely been implicated. On the other hand, the learned Addl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the driving license of the petitioner was recovered from the alleged vehicle. The witnesses in paragraph No. 78 of the case diary have stated that the petitioner was habitual of rash driving.

In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T