← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40670/2025bail rejected

Arvind Singh @ Arbind Singh @ Arvindra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-16Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40670 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- SIDHWALIYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Arvind singh @ Arbind Singh @ Arvindra Singh S/O Late Ram Pujan Resident of village- Lohijara, Police Station- Sidhwaliya, district- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, learned APP and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sindhwaliya P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025 dated 29.03.2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 117(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. As per the First Information Report on 21.03.2025, while the informant along with her husband were at home, the accused persons, namely, Abhinandan Singh along with his father, Arvind Singh (petitioner herein) arrived on a motorcycle brandishing pistol in his hand and threatened the informant's husband to kill. It is further alleged that co-accused, Abhinandan Singh assaulted the informant on his head with iron-rod due to which right eye-ball came out and then the petitioner assaulted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40670 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/3 him by means of rod causing fracture injury on his right shoulder. When the informant tried to rescue her husband, she was also assaulted by them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to dispute between the two neighbours. The petitioner and the informant are close-door neighbours. The allegation against the petitioner is that he gave assault upon non vital part of the body of the victim. Referring to the injury report, learned counsel submits that the injury has been opined as grievous in nature but there is no proof that eye-ball of the informant's husband came out due to the said assault. The allegation of assault to the informant's husband caused by the petitioner and co-accused, Abhinandan Singh, son of the petitioner, is not corroborated by any medical evidence. The petitioner is a Government servant posted at Lohijra Post Office as Postman in Gopalganj. Lastly, it has been submitted that there is delay in lodging of the FIR inasmuch as the incident took place on 21.03.2025 while the FIR has been lodged on 29.03.2025 after delay of eight days and that too without assigning any valid reason.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40670 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 3/3 bail submitting that the reason behind the delay in lodging of the FIR is that the informant's husband having sustained grievous injuries was referred to Gorakhpur Hospital for advance treatment. The severity of the injury of coming out the eye-ball of the informant's husband has come during course of investigation and the fact that the victim was referred to Gorakpur Hospital for advance treatment has also come in the case diary. The allegation against the petitioner is specific and fracture on the right shoulder of the victim is also corroborated by the injury report which is grievous in nature. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties, taking into consideration the nature of specific allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the victim sustained the grievous injuries, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, hereby, rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T