Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satendra Singh @ Satendera Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38259 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -65 Year- 2015 Thana -KOTWA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satendra Singh @ Satendera Singh Son of Rameshwar Singh.

2. Rama Shankar Singh @ Raja Singh Son of Lal Babu Singh.

3. Uma Singh @ Uma Shankar Singh Son of Lal Babu Singh.

4. Suresh Singh Son of Late Deonandan Singh.

5. Rajeshwar Singh Son of Jamuna Singh.

6. Raj Kishore Singh Son of Late Deonandan Singh.

7. Ajay Singh Son of Sulena Singh.

All are resident of Village- Belwa Madho, Police Station- Kotwa, DistrictEast Champaran. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Mr. Patanjali Rishi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

17-09-2016 Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of informant.

Seven petitioners, who are named as accused in Kotwa P.S. Case No. 65 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38259 of 2016 (2) dt.17-09-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there was case and counter case in between the parties. He further submits that though, in the F.I.R., Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, during investigation, those allegations were not found true and police submitted chargesheet, not under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He further submits that during investigation, petitioners were on police bail. On the ground that there was case and counter case, a prayer has been made to grant anticipatory bail, whereas, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel for the informant have raised objection regarding maintainability of the present anticipatory bail petition. Besides this, Sri Rishi submits that from the F.I.R., it is evident that serious offences were committed by the accused persons.

Keeping in view the nature of accusation as well as the fact that petitioners were already on police bail, there is no reason to entertain the present petition.

Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T