Chhotu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40075 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -116 Year- 2017 Thana -SILAW District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Chhotu Singh, S/o Sri Ashok Singh, R/o Village- Silaodeeh, P.S.- Silao, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Parasmani For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshnand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-12-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Silao P.S. Case No. 116 of 2017, registered under Sections 323, 341, 379, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

The accusation is that petitioner along with Binnu Pandit reached at the door of the informant Dharmendra Vishwakarma, who was sitting at Thela with his friend and started to abuse him saying that why he has not come for removing the defect of the pipeline. When informant made

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40075 of 2017 (4) dt.14-12-2017 2/2 protest then both caused injury to him through lathi and stick, when Upendra Vishwakarma, brother of the informant, reached there then petitioner gave stick blow at his head and also snatched golden chain.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while allegation has been made against the petitioner to cause injury through stick at the brother of the informant, but informant and injured has filed the compromise petition on 09.08.2017 in the Court of ACJM, Nalanda at Biharsharif, which would appear from Annexure-2.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within six weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T