Amrendra Kumar @ Amrendra Singh @ Panditwa v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1808 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2021 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Amrendra Kumar @ Amrendra Singh @ Panditwa Son Of Shri Krishna Singh Resident Of Village - Sorampur, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, Distt.- Patna. 2.
Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Singh Son Of Shri Krishna Singh Resident Of Village - Sorampur, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Bajvangi Ram Son of Late Ram Ayodhya Ram R/o vill- Chandi Post Navhi Chandi, P.S.- Chandi, Dist- Bhojpur Arrah ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Arshad Jameel Hashmi For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Usha Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
Office pointed out that the notice has been received by the respondent no. 2 but no body appears on his behalf. This is an appeal under section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 17.02.2022, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Patna in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 243 of 2021, registered under Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the IPC, Section 25 (a)/ 27 of the Arms Act and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1808 of 2022(3) dt.07-12-2022 2/2 Sections 3(i) (r) (S), 3 (2) ra of SC/ST Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is specific allegation against coaccused Chotan Singh who fired by illegal arms. He further submits that appellants have criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this appeal.
However, learned Spl. PP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the appellants are also involved in the present case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 243 of 2021. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T