Pappu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55761 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -241 Year- 2016 Thana -BHAGWAN BAZAR District- SARAN ====================================================== Pappu Singh, S/o Surendra Singh, resident of Mohalla- Chhatradhari Bazar, P.S.- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 241 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

The accusation is that on 21.08.2016, in the evening, informant Ved Prakash Yadav along with his pattidar Rajendra Rai going to Darogarai Chowk. In the way, he saw that petitioner along with Pappu Rai, Ashish Kumar and Sonal Kumar were standing. At that time Ashish Kumar and Sonal Kumar caught hold him then this petitioner caused injury through knife at his belly and elbow and also to Rajendra Rai at his right elbow.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55761 of 2016 (4) dt.03-02-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while three injuries were found on the person of the informant out of which injury No.2 and 3 were simple in nature. Further submission is that informant, who has a criminal background, implicated the petitioner because his brother in law contested the election of ward commissioner against this petitioner as his name is also Mithlesh Kumar Singh.

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 four 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