Vinay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19309 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2020 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== VINAY SINGH S/o Baleshwar Singh R/o village- Rajmaldih, P.S.- Sikrhta, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 08-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 104 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3. Allegedly, all the accused persons including the petitioner are said to have inflicted knife blows to the prosecution party and also assaulted them by means of lathidanda.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Both the parties are co-villagers. No such occurrence as alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19309 of 2022(4) dt.08-01-2024 2/2 ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. There is old enmity between the parties. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that he along with other accused persons inflicted knife blows to the informant's father due to which he sustained grievous injury. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of the injury sustained by the informant's father, i.e. grievous, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T