Harendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14798 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -543 Year- 2015 Thana -HAJIPUR SADAR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Harendra Singh, S/o Late Deo Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Lal Pokhar Dighi, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachchida Nand Choudhary, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP For the informant Ms. Bela Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 543/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that the petitioner came and took her husband for settlement of land dispute, but the informant and her mother-in-law speculating some untoward, followed her husband and saw that Harendra Singh (petitioner) and his son Sunil Singh were catching her husband and they ordered Arvind Singh to kill, on such, Arvind Singh fired and her husband died on the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14798 of 2017 (3) dt.19-06-2017 2/2 petitioner is an old man. He has no manner of concern with the husband of the informant. The allegation is ornamental. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

It appears that it was the petitioner, who took the deceased to the place of occurrence for settlement of land dispute, but the petitioner caught the deceased and on his order, Arvind Singh fired, causing the death of the deceased on the spot. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T