Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41652/2019dismissed

Bikal Kumar Singh @ Chhote Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-08Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41652 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2017 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran ====================================================== BIKAL KUMAR SINGH @ CHHOTE SINGH Son of Sri Kant Singh Resident of Village- Kudia Bangari, P.S.- Pipra Kothi, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 08-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 387, 307, 120B/34 IPC registered in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 216 of 2017, G.R. No. 855 of 2017.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely on the extra judicial confessional statement of co-accused Kunal Singh, except which there is no objective material to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. The accusation of assault and of demanding rangdari is upon said co-accused Kunal Singh. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the said co-accused Kunal Singh is said to have spoken to the petitioner.

4. Learned APP on the other hand refer to the order of the learned Sessions Judge in which para 156 of the case diary has been taken note of to the effect that co-accused Ripu Kumar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41652 of 2019(2) dt.08-07-2019 2/2 Pandy had been arrested by the police and he has disclosed the active participation of the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T