Mantu Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11200 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2017 Thana -BARUN District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Mantu Singh, Son of Janeshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Malpur, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad.

2. Deepak Kumar, Son of Indrajeet Singh, Resident of Village - Mohanganj, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad.

3. Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Ram Narayan Singh, Resident of Village - Dhamoni, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad.

4. Sunil Kumar, Son of Ramawtar Singh, Resident of Village - Chhakan Bigha, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad.

5. Raju Kumar @ Raju Singh, Son of Kameshwar Singh, Resident of village - Malpur, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad.

6. Bachan Singh, Son of Deo Raj Singh

7. Santosh Singh, Son of Deo Raj Singh, Both are resident of Village - Chandar Bigha, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad.

8. Raja Singh @ Raja Ram Kumar, Son of Late Kail Singh, Resident of Village - Kochad, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-04-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Barun P.S. Case No. 19 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section 386 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that the petitioners surrounded him and demanded extortion for lifting sands. The informant further alleged that the petitioners also assaulted the informant and others and took away Rs. 1,51,065/- and cash memo etc. from

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11200 of 2017 (3) dt.13-04-2017 2/2 possession of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some dispute arose for lifting of sands. Now the case has been compromised. The injuries are simple in nature, but it appears that the petitioners not only demanded extortion but assaulted the informant and snatched Rs. 1,51,065/- from the possession of the informant.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioners, if so advised, may surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pray for regular bail, their prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T