← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39556/2020bail rejected

Sarvesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-12Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39556 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2019 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Sarvesh Singh, Son of Nageshwar Singh @ Nago Singh, Resident of Village - Kasmara, P.S.- Dhamdaha, District - Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhola Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No.243 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Purnia.

There is an allegation that the informant's husband has been fired upon by the petitioner on his chest, leading to his death.

The petitioner's counsel submits that in the investigation, criminal antecedents of the deceased has come to light. He is an accused of 19 cases since before and has also been in jail for some time. The prosecution case is based on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39556 of 2020(3) dt.12-03-2021 2/2 subsisting family disputes between the parties and on such false implication, the petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2020. Learned APP has referred to certain paragraphs of the case diary, wherein competent witnesses have supported the allegation. The specific assault upon the deceased by firearm leading to his death is attributed against the petitioner. Considering the rival submissions, for the present, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail. The same is rejected.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T