Brahm Prakash Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24680 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2017 Thana -SHAMBHUGANJ District- BANKA ======================================================

1. Brahm Prakash Singh, Son of Late Maheshwari Singh.

2. Nitish Kumar Singh @ Nitish Kumar, Son of Pramod Singh.

3. Sipul Prasad, Son of Ramlakhan Singh.

4. Ashish Kumar Singh @ Ashish Kumar, Son of Ishwari Singh, All are resident of Village: Basbitta, Police Station: Shambhuganj, District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Smt Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 13-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State as well as Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha for the informant. Petitioner no.1 is the Member of the Panchayat Samiti whereas petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are the students of the School. The informant is the Anganwari Sewika of Centre no. 91. The complaint was lodged on 03.01.2017 alleging that the petitioner no.1 with the active support of other petitioners created obstacle in due discharge of duty. Earlier, the petitioner no.1 had also demanded 'Rangdari' from her. They are, thus, facing accusations punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 384, 386, and 354, 379 and 506/34 of the IPC. The prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail.

It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24680 of 2017 (3) dt.13-07-2017 2/2 complaint against the irregular functioning of the informant. Acting on the said complaint, District Programme Officer had issued a notice to the informant vide Annexure-8. Subsequently, another notice was given to her vide Annexure-9.It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 2 to 4 in commission of crime which is attributed only against petitioner no.1.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, points out from the case diary that several witnesses have supported the accusations levelled by the informant against the petitioners.

Be that as it may, considering the allegations and other materials reflected from the record, I am not inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail. Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.

The petitioners shall surrender and pray for bail before the Court below. If they do so, the Trial Court shall consider their application for bail on merit unprejudiced by the present order.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T