Sonu Singh @ Sonu @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51043 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-753 Year-2020 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== SONU SINGH @ SONU @ SONU KUMAR S/o VIJAY SINGH, R/o VILLAGE-EKWARI, P.S-SAHAR, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-09-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the informant and also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 753 of 2020 registered for offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation, the informant along with his son Dharmendra Kumar Singh had gone to Jagdeo Nagar. He met his son Upendra Singh alias Mithun and Prince Bajrangi. All of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51043 of 2021(4) dt.27-09-2022 2/3 sudden, 3-4 miscreants emerged there. They were equipped with pistol. They started indiscriminate firing on the sons of the informant, Upendra Kumar Singh alias Mithun and Prince Bajrangi and they became injured. Thereafter, one miscreant uttered that the work has been accomplished and directed to coaccused Suman and Bittu to flee away. The miscreants fled towards eastern direction. The reason behind the occurrence is stated to be land dispute between the parties. Upendra Kumar Singh @ Mithun died during way to the hospital. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He is a person of clean antecedent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and Mr J.N.

Thakur, the learned APP have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the witnesses in paragraph nos. 21 and 25 of the case diary have supported the entire occurrence and co-accused Suman and Bittu furnished their self inculpatory confessional statement, that has been incorporated in paragraph nos. 71 and 72 of the case diary respectively. They have furnished the vivid discretion of the entire occurrence disclosing the complicity of the present petitioner. In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51043 of 2021(4) dt.27-09-2022 3/3 Accordingly, it is rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T