Ashutosh Singh @ Galu Singh @ Gallu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1214 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2018 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan ====================================================== 1.

ASHUTOSH SINGH @ GALU SINGH @ GALLU Son of Amlesh Singh Resident of Sagar Rai Ka Tola, P.S.- Darauli, District - Siwan 2.

Akhilesh Singh Son of Mukhiya Singh Resident of Sagar Rai ka Tola, P.S.- Darauli, District - Siwan 3.

Vishal Singh Son of Mukhiya Singh Resident of Sagar Rai ka Tola, P.S.- Darauli, District - Siwan 4.

Nitesh Singh Son of Munna Singh Resident of Sagar Rai ka Tola, P.S.- Darauli, District - Siwan ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Krishna Kant Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2019 Heard learned counsels for the appellants and the State.

Appellants apprehend arrest in connection with Darauli P.S. Case No. 212 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(i)(r)/ 3(i)(c)/ 3(2)(v)a of the SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity on account of land dispute.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1214 of 2019(3) dt.18-06-2019 2/2 The allegations levelled are general and omnibus and nothing specific is alleged against these appellants. Moreover, the injuries sustained by the informant has been found to be simple in nature. Appellants are men of clean antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that appellants are named accused in the first information report and there is specific allegations levelled against them of assault which is supported by the injury report. He, therefore, submits that appellants do not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. The same is, therefore, rejected.

The appeal is dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T