Anil Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45822 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2018 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Anil Singh Son of Bechu Singh @ Prashuram Singh R/O Village- Rohra, P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan.

2.

Sudhir Singh Son of Bechu Singh @ Prashuram Singh R/O Village- Rohra, P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 411 of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 15.06.2018, when the informant, after closing his jewelry shop, was coming home, in the meantime, he was intercepted by four miscreants who started damaging his motorcycle. When the informant protested, the miscreants shot him and altogether four rounds of firing was made. The miscreants also took away gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45822 of 2025(2) dt.28-07-2025 2/2 thirty thousand and twenty-five thousand respectively by breaking the dickey of the motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners are not named in the FIR and name of petitioners surfaced during the course of investigation.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the bail petition and submits that there is allegation against these petitioners that they have supplied pistol and katta to the original co-accused. Petitioner no. 1 carries seven criminal antecedents and petitioner no. 2 carries five criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation levelled in the FIR against the petitioners, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shahnawaz/- U T