Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8451/2017rejected

Deenanath Singh @ Dina Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-17Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8451 of 2017 (10) dt.17-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8451 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -864 Year- 2015 Thana -HAJIPUR SADAR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Deenanath Singh @ Dina Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Asharaf Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Hajipur Town Police Station Case No. 864 of 2015, disclosing offences under Sections 144, 290, 370, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner happens to be the owner of the lodge in question and he does not reside there. The petitioner has no concern about the alleged occurrence rather the tenant who is in occupation of the said lodge is responsible for the alleged occurrence. No any witness of the said vicinity has supported the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Hence, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8451 of 2017 (10) dt.17-07-2017 petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was indulged in running a immoral activities in his lodge which is adjoining of his house.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U