Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38218/2016dismissed

Bhotha Singh @ Manoj Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-16Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38218 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -69 Year- 2015 Thana -AJIMABAD District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Bhotha Singh @ Manoj Singh

2. Tunna Singh

3. Randhir Singh All sons of Nand Kishore Singh

4. Pankaj Singh S/o Ram Ayodhaya Singh

5. Sonu Singh S/o Bhotha Singh @ Manoj Singh

6. Mantu Singh @ Mantu Kumar Singh S/o Late Surendra Singh All residents of Village Bargaon, P.S.- Azimabad, Dist- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-09-2016 Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Six petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Azimabad P.S. Case No.69/2015 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

By way of referring to F.I.R., it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no intention to kill anyone and only allegation has been made that two groups

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38218 of 2016 (2) dt.16-09-2016 2/2 were firing on each other. He submits that entire family members of petitioners' side have been made accused. He further submits that the informant has not named accused, but the informant got the name of petitioners from Chowkidar. He submits that for application of provisions under the Arms Act, there must be specific accusation as to who used the Arms, whereas in the F.I.R. there is general and omnibus allegation. It has also been argued that some of the petitioners are residing out side and, as such, petitioners deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. However, after going through the F.I.R., the Court is satisfied that it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T