Alok Ranjan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28919 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2020 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

ALOK RANJAN SINGH Son of Chandrika Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Mani Chapra, P.S.- Chakia, Distt.- East Champaran. 2.

Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Chandrika Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Mani Chapra, P.S.- Chakia, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-01-2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.

The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 138 of 2020 registered for offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

There is allegation that the FIR named accused persons badly assaulted the informant Kamal Kishore Singh.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28919 of 2021(2) dt.29-01-2022 2/2 Kamal Kishore Singh sustained seven injuries on his person and one of the injuries is grievous in nature.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are agnates and there is previous enmity between the parties. The petitioners have falsely been implicated.

There is specific allegation against petitioner no. 1 that on the order of petitioner no. 2, he inflicted repeated Farsa and Axe blow on the person of the informant, who sustained seven injuries and one of the injuries is grievous in nature. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail and accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) Mahesh/- U T