Himanshu Kumar Singh @ Nepali Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9659 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2019 Thana- SIKRAUL District- Buxar ====================================================== HIMANSHU KUMAR SINGH @ NEPALI SINGH S/o Babuli Singh @ Kedar Nath Singh Resident of Village- Goppur, P.S.- Sikraul, Distt- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh For the Informant : Mr. Manish Prakash ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 04-09-2020 This case has been heard through videoconferencing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sikraul P.S. Case No.117 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 435 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Buxar.
When the informant on the eve of Chhath Puja had gone to his village and parked his Maruti Alto Car between his house and the house of the petitioner, the petitioner objected and threatened to face dire consequences. On 31.10.2019 the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9659 of 2020(3) dt.04-09-2020 2/3 petitioner keeping a revolver in his hand sat on his boundary gave threat. At about 10:30 PM the petitioner set ablaze his car by sprinkling petrol. Due to this he suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. When they tried to chase him he escaped from the place of occurrence abusing him and resorting firing. Earlier to this incident, he had threatened to his family members.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that all the sections are bailable in nature except Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The I.O. has also found burnt article at the place of occurrence and the supervisory authority has found the case true under Section 504, 506, 435 & 427 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Para no.27 of the case diary recites criminal history of the petitioner and all are related to the Excise Act. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9659 of 2020(3) dt.04-09-2020 3/3 Considering the facts and circumstances of case and particularly considering the criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T