Bipin Singh @ Bipin Kumar @ Bipin Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39211 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2019 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Begusarai ====================================================== BIPIN SINGH @ BIPIN KUMAR @ BIPIN KUMAR SINGH Son of Mahendra Singh, Resident of village- Gorgama, P.S. Nayagaon, Distt. Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar No. 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Allegation has been made by the informant that Bipin Singh, Ram Subhag Singh, Ghanshyam Singh, Balram Singh, Mukund Singh, Rambilash Singh, Chhotu Singh, Rambilash Singh, Bipul Singh, Gaurav Kumar and 8-10 unknown persons came with the different weapons and tried to capture his land, but due to alertness, they did not success. On 17.01.2019 at 12.00 (noon), the accused persons have again committed the same offence, resorted firing upon the family members of the informant which led to filing of Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 5 of 2019 against the accused persons as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39211 of 2019(3) dt.01-08-2019 2/2 stated above. It has further been alleged that the accused persons dragged out the informant from his shop and assaulted him by way of rod, butt of rifle. Allegation has been made against Ghanshyam Singh who took away Rs.10,000/-. Bipin Singh and Ghanshyam Singh asked the informant to withdraw the aforesaid case, otherwise he will face the consequences.

The petitioner is a Teacher, having criminal history. The counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated six co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by the court below so the petitioner should also be treated alike. Looking to the past history of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to him and accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, if he surrenders before the court below and prays for regular bail, the court below without being prejudiced by this order will take into consideration that the other co-accused have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail and take decision in accordance with law, preferably on the same day.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T