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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2270 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2022 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran ====================================================== NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH @ NEERAJ SINGH SON OF MITHILESH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- BHATAURA, P.S.- TARAIYA, DISTT.- SARAN(CHAPRA) ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan Mr.Ravindra Kr.Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 3rd-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran (Chapra) in A.B.P. No.1596 of 2022 arising out of Taraiya P.S. Case No.63 of 2022 registered under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2270 of 2022(2) dt.18-05-2023 2/2 appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. The appellant has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the appellant and the informant are co-villagers.

Learned counsel for the informant as well as the Special P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that there is specific allegation of catching the hand of the informant, hurling abusive language of caste to the informant and her mother against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as well as the nature of allegations made against the appellant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Harish/- U T