Dinesh Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34432 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2011 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== SANJEET KUMAR SUMAN @ SUJEET KUMAR SUMAN Son of Shiv Govind Ram @ Shiv Kumar Ram Resident of Village - Salthua, P.s.- Kudra , Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabhua).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 43632 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2011 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== DINESH PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Resident of Village - Alkapuri, Bhagwanpur, P.s.- Muzaffarpur sadar, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34432 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rudra Deo For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 43632 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34432 of 2022(4) dt.12-12-2022 2/2 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the petitioners. He submits that there is no eye witness in this case only on suspicion the petitioners have made accused in this case. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is ample evidence in the case diary, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Town P.S. Case No.330/2011. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T