Pappu Singh @ Arun Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38521 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2019 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== PAPPU SINGH @ ARUN SINGH S/O Late Wisan Singh @ Biman Singh R/O Village- Kakan, P.S.- and District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No.125 of 2019 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui.

The accusation is that when the informant along with Mantranand Mahto was loading the paddy straw on the tractor and his father Gorelal Mahto was tiding the paddy straw, at that time, 15 persons, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner and three unknown, borne on six motorcycles came there and started to make firing at his father. In that course, Ganga Singh alias Manish Singh shot fire at the father of the informant which hit at the back, whereas

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38521 of 2019(4) dt.27-09-2019 2/2 Vinod Singh shot fire at the head, Umashankar Singh shot fire at the back of the head and Kamlesh Singh shot fire at the eye of the father of the informant. When the father of the informant fell down on the ground, this petitioner and other F.I.R. named accused started to make firing at him causing firearm injuries to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. along with others but no specific overt act is attributed to him. In the post-mortem examination of the father of the informant, only four firearm injuries were found. Due to caste rivalry, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T