Arvind Kumar Singh @ Rajiv Singh @ Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22710 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2020 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== ARVIND KUMAR SINGH @ RAJIV SINGH @ ARVIND KUMAR S/o Raj Kishore Singh Resident of Village-Kutubpur Sahamal, P.S.-Mahua, DistrictVaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 01-10-2020 The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video Conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Mahua PS case no. 02 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.01.2020 at about 10 am, the husband of the informant was sitting in front of the door of his house and was talking with his co-villagers, whereupon he had told his wife to serve tea and when the informant was going to serve tea to her husband, she saw that the accused persons (not the petitioner herein) had come at the place of occurrence on two motorcycles and after getting down from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22710 of 2020(2) dt.01-10-2020 2/2 motorcycles, co-accused namely Avinash Rai and Vinay Rai had taken out pistol from their waist and had fired on the husband of the informant from their pistol resulting in the husband of the informant sustaining gun shot injuries and subsequently, he is stated to have died. The petitioner is stated to have been actively involved in the supervision of the said crime as well as he was monitoring the entire incident at the place of occurrence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as also is having no complicity in the matter. Per contra, the learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the fact that the petitioner is an accused in six other cases and is stated to be a veteran criminal as also his complicity in the alleged crime is apparent from the F.I.R. itself, I do not find any merit in the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U T