Vishwanath Singh @ Bishwnath Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47760 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2024 Thana- SIDHWALIYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Vishwanath Singh @ Bishwnath Singh Son of Late Ramnarayan Singh Resident of Vill- Shertola (Chand Parna), P.S.- Sidhwalia, DistrictGopalganj. 2.

Manraj Singh Son of Bishwnath Singh @ Vishwanath Singh Resident of Vill- Shertola (Chand Parna), P.S.- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj. 3.

Sinku Kumar Singh @ Sinku Singh Son of Nandkishor Singh Resident of Vill- Shertola (Chand Parna), P.S.- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Onkar Nath For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-09-2024 Earlier, vide order dated 14.08.2024, this pre-arrest bail petition already stood dismissed in respect of petitioner no. 2 (Manraj Singh).

2. The petitioners (petitioner no. 1 & 3) apprehend their arrest in a case registered for offence under Sections 341, 323, 353, 379, 427, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On the alleged date and time of occurrence, the informant, who happens to be Juior Electrical Engineer, Power Supply Branch, Sidhwaliya, and other officials of Electricity Department were collecting the revenue against the consumption of electricity and when they disconnected the electricity connection seeing outstanding electricity bill, these petitioners & others committed Maarpeet with them. They also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47760 of 2024(4) dt.19-09-2024 2/2 snatched Rs. 52,500/- from the officials and broken their mobile phone, printer etc.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, the dispute cropped up, as the petitioner no.-1 gave a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash against the part payment of electricity bill but the informant wasn't giving the revenue receipt, rather was asking to collect the same from the office and as such, when petitioners asked to return the entire amount, this false and concocted case has been instituted.

5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that while the officials of electricity department disconnected the electricity of petitioners, they became aggressive, committed Maarpeet with them, broke their mobile phone, printer etc. and thereby, caused hindrance in discharge of their official duties.

6. Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T