Birendra Kumar @ Birendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38862 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-255 Year-2018 Thana- PARSABAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Birendra Kumar @ Birendra Singh Son of Late Dilip Singh, Resident of Village - Ganjpar, P.S.- Parsa Bazaar, Distt - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Parasa Bazar P.S. Case No.255 of 2018 registered under Sections 307, 379 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant alleged that the petitioner, who is a property dealer, came with his friends and purchased vegetables. When the informant demanded money, the accused persons including petitioner snatched Rs.6,000/- from possession of the informant and also made indiscriminate firing in which two persons, namely, Ramesh Singh and Shankar Singh got fire injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner filed a counter case being Parasa Bazar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38862 of 2019(2) dt.25-06-2019 2/2 P.S. Case No.260 of 2018 alleging that the informant and others came to her house in search of her husband. The accused persons had earlier assaulted the informant, but it appears that the informant made very specific allegation that the petitioner being property dealer not only purchased vegetables from the shop of the informant but on asking the price of the vegetables snatched money from his possession and also made indiscriminate firing causing injury to Ramesh Singh and Shankar Singh.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T