Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satyendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15166 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-776 Year-2022 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

SATENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI RAM JANAM SINGH Resident of Village- Shekhpura, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna.

2.

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI MUNDRIKA SINGH Resident of Village- Shekhpura, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna. 3.

DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI RAMA SINGH Resident of VillageShekhpura, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking prearrest bail in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 776/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner no. 1 has got one criminal antecedent and two criminal antecedents against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as stated in paragraph '3' of the application.

As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that on 21.11.2022 all the accused persons came at his house and started firing to kill him and also damaged his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15166 of 2023(2) dt.18-05-2023 2/2 vehicle. He further alleged that accused persons were planning of the said crime at the house of Raju Kumar Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against all these petitioners of firing and nobody has been injured.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Having regard to the specific allegation against these petitioners that they were involved in firing, the facts of the case revealing that 100 rounds of firing took place on the house of the informant and the seizure list corroborating the allegations substantially inasmuch as several empty/fired cartridges have been recovered from the spot as also petitioners have got criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to these petitioners.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners is, thus, refused.

This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T