Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22585 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2020 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH KUMAR SINGH @ PINTU SINGH S/oRaghunath Singh Resident of Village- Singahi, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt- Saran 2.

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Singh @ Chintu Singh S/o- Raghunath Singh Resident of Village- Singahi, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt- Saran 3.

Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh S/o - Raghunath Singh Resident of Village- Singahi, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt- Saran 4.

Randhir Singh @ Randhir Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh S/o- Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Singahi, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Alok For the State :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 379, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. Both the parties are agnates. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22585 of 2020(5) dt.03-03-2021 2/2 Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that there is direct allegation against petitioner no.3 Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh, who caused injury to Golu Kumar by means of sward. Hence, petitioner no.3 Sunil Singh is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 3 Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh is rejected.

As regards prayer of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 is concerned, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. Let the above named petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Saran, Chapra in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T