Prabhakar Singh @ Prabhakar Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35704 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2019 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== 1.

PRABHAKAR SINGH @ PRABHAKAR PRASAD SINGH Son of Late Janardhan Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Majhgain, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka 2.

Diwakar Singh @ Diwakar Prasad Singh @ Diwakar Wakar Prasad Singh Son of Late Janardhan Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Majhgain, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka 3.

Sudhakar Singh @ Sudhakar Prasad Singh Son of Late Janardhan Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Majhgain, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka 4.

Bibhakar Singh @ Bibhakar Prasad Singh Son of Late Janardhan Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Majhgain, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka 5.

Dharmendra Singh @ Dharmendra Narayan Singh Son of Late Janardhan Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Majhgain, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-08-2019 This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 109/2019, disclosing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 337, 338 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioners is that they along with Rinku Singh, Banti Singh came and started assaulting the informant and others and also threatened the drivers of JCB and trucks and when the informant tried to flee away, co-accused Rinku Singh and petitioner no. 1 started firing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35704 of 2019(3) dt.09-08-2019 2/2 on the informant.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no specific allegation has been attributed to them and they have falsely been implicated in this case and though there is allegation against petitioner no. 1 and co-accused is of firing on the informant but the said firing did not hit anybody. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. They have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in this case the informant has brutally been assaulted by the petitioners and others and several injuries have been caused to him, which will appear from injury report itself. Further submission of learned counsel for the informant is that the informant is an authorized sand dealer and the petitioners had come to grab the same.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. This application is, accordingly, dismissed (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T