Nand Kumar Singh @ Nandu Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15934 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -41 Year- 2016 Thana -DIHRINAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Nand Kumar Singh @ Nandu Singh S/O Rajendra Singh
2. Gyanchand Singh R/O Rajendra Singh
3. Premchand Singh S/O Rajendra Singh
4. Pappu Kumar Singh @ Pappu Kumar Singh S/O Late Surendra Singh All are resident of Village-Baran Bigha, P.S.-Darihat, District-Rohtas.
5. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Late Kariman Singh Resident of Village- Pali, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-05-2016 Petitioners are permitted to make necessary correction in para-3 of the present application.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case instituted under Sections 307, 386, 379, 279, 337, 504, 338, 426, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that while informant along with his persons was working at Makrain Sand Ghat, the petitioners went there and demanded extortion money of Rs.2 lacs. Thereafter, informant was assaulted by the petitioners and petitioner nos. 1 and 5 took away Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- from the pocket and bag of the informant respectively.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 have got no criminal antecedent. So far petitioner nos. 1 and 5 are concerned, they have criminal antecedent. There is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4. General
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15934 of 2016 (2) dt.16-05-2016 2/2 and omnibus allegation has been made against them. No specific injury has been attributed against them.
On behalf of the State and informant, it is submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and specific allegation of assault has been made against petitioner nos. 1 and 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner nos. 1 and 5, same is rejected.
As far as petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, let the above named petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 , in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri (Rohtas), in connection with Dehri (Dalmiyanagar) P.S. Case no. 41 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) sudip/- U T