Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22586/2020rejected

Bhushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-04Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22586 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2019 Thana- Beldaur District- Khagaria ======================================================

1. Bhushan Singh, aged about 45 years, Male, son of Damodar Singh

2. Niraj Kumar @ Vinay Kumar, aged about 27 years, Male, son of Damodar Singh

3. Ajeet Kumar aged about 29 years, Male, son of Bhola Singh, all resident of village Pansalwa, P.S. Beldaur, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Beldaur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under sections 147, 341, 323, 353, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing specific is alleged against these petitioners. Further, during investigation no material has come suggesting any damage to public property. Petitioners are men of clean antecedent. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22586 of 2020(2) dt.04-09-2020 2/2 prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that during investigation materials have come against these petitioners showing their complicity in the alleged occurrence. He, therefore, submits that petitioners do not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Their prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. . Manish /- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T Note: This is certified to be the true typed copy of the original order.