Keshav Singh @ Keshaw Singh @ Keshav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25944 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2021 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== KESHAV SINGH @ KESHAW SINGH @ KESHAV KUMAR Son of Raghvendra Singh Resident of Mohalla - Physical Gali, Opposite T.V.S. Show Room Mehsal Chowk, P.S.- Town, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegedly, petitioner, along with two other accused persons, is said to have shot and killed the informant's son.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is admitted land dispute

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25944 of 2023(3) dt.21-07-2023 2/2 between Rahul and his cousin Keshav Singh. There is no eyewitness in the present case, as the occurrence took place at night. As it is stated in the FIR that three persons fired upon the informant's son, but only one wound was found over the body of the deceased, hence, it cannot be said that by whom the informant's son got fire arm injury. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T