Baban Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52949 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-556 Year-2019 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
BABAN SINGH SON OF LATE MAHADEO SINGH R/O VILLAGEJARLAHI MATHIYA, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DIST.- ROHTAS 2.
AJEET SINGH SON OF BABAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- JARLAHI MATHIYA, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DIST.- ROHTAS 3.
SUJIT SINGH SON OF BABAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- JARLAHI MATHIYA, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DIST.- ROHTAS 4.
SOBHA NATH @ SOBH NATH SINGH @ SUNIL SINGH SON OF BABAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- JARLAHI MATHIYA, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DIST.- ROHTAS 5.
MAHENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE GUPUT NATH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- JARLAHI MATHIYA, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DIST.- ROHTAS 6.
BINAY SINGH SON OF MAHENDRA SINGH R/O VILLAGE- JARLAHI MATHIYA, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DIST.- ROHTAS 7.
KAMESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAMAYAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- JARLAHI MATHIYA, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DIST.- ROHTAS ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman Mr.Raghuvansh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, on 03.12.2019, all the accused persons including these petitioners alongwith 20-25 unknown persons forcibly harvested paddy crops worth Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52949 of 2021(3) dt.16-08-2022 2/2 80,000/- from the field of the informant and when the informant came to know about the occurrence and he reached at his field, the accused persons came there, tied his hands and thereafter, assaulted him with fists and slaps.
It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that on account of land dispute between the parties, petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Allegation is general and omnibus in nature. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners.
However, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that during investigation, theft articles have been recovered from khalihan of the accused persons and these petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and have got criminal antecedent also. Considering the same, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T