Anil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16812 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -217 Year- 2016 Thana -GAURICHAK District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Anil Kumar Singh, Son of Maharana Pratap Singh, R/o MohallaTaranpur, P.S. Gaurichak, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma For the Informant :

Mr. Prakash Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.K. Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-04-2017 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gaurichak P.S.Case No.217 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of firing on the informant causing him injuries, however, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as a matter of fact due to the expenditure made in 'Shradh', the dispute arose with the informant, who is own cousin brother of the petitioner and the scuffle took place, in which 'marpit' took place between both the parties and there is a case and counter case.

It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has also received grievous injuries in the occurrence and injury said to have been caused by petitioner is not serious and so far

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16812 of 2017 (2) dt.19-04-2017 2/2 antecedent of the petitioner is concerned, due to family dispute, all the cases have been filed against him.

Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant has pointed out that the petitioner has been convicted in one of the cases and apart from that the petitioner is accused in several other cases, on this the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his conviction has already been set aside in major Sections. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts as stated above, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, however, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks and make prayer for regular bail, who will consider this aspect of the matter and also consider the fact that there is case and counter case between the parties and the petitioner has also received grievous injures in the occurrence, and will pass appropriate order without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U