Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16442/2016rejected

Uma Singh And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-04Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16442 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -225 Year- 2015 Thana -CHAINPUR District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================

1. Uma Singh, Son of Ram Pyare Singh

2. Ram Pyare Singh son of Late Ram Charan Singh

3. Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Singh son of Late Gulabchand Singh

4. Nagina Singh S/o Jagdish Singh All resident of Village Sonbarsa, P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur.

5. Dilip Singh S/o Late Ramdhyan Singh Resident of Village- Kharhariya, P.S.- Sonhan, District- Kaimur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr.Tiwary 1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case under Section 325 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. Later one section 307 of the IPC was added.

The informant alleged that the accused persons forcefully entered into her house and set fire. She further alleged that the accused persons brutally assaulted her and took different articles worth Rs. 70,000/- from her house.

Sri Ajay Nandan Sahay, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that during the course of investigation the allegation setting fire in the house has been found incorrect.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16442 of 2016 (3) dt.04-07-2016 2/2 Involvement of Maksudan Singh has also been found incorrect as he was on duty. He submits that entire allegation is false and concocted but from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the informant made allegation against the petitioners that they brutally assaulted her. The informant got as many as five injuries. There was teeth bite injury on forearm and 4th and 5th rib of chest of informant was found fractured and the doctor opined this injury to be grievous in nature.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T