Praduman Prasad Singh @ Praduman Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5107 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -89 Year- 2016 Thana -BHAWANIPUR District- PURNIA ======================================================
1. Praduman Prasad Singh @ Praduman Singh, Son of Late Nageshwar Singh,
2. Sudhakar Singh, Son of Late Arjun Singh,
3. Bhushan Singh @ Bhushan Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Chandrashekhar Singh, All Resident of Village- Karmanchak, P.S.- Bhawanipur (Balia), District- Purnea.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushotam Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bhawanipur P.S. case no. 89 of 2016 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnia.
Accusation is that due to Panchayat election, on 25.05.2016, in the morning at about 2.30 A.M., Ran Vijay Singh, husband of informant, was carried by 8 persons including the petitioners from Machan and brutally assaulted and cut his legs and hands through sharp cutting weapon. On raising alarm, she
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5107 of 2017 (2) dt.18-03-2017 2/2 along with other persons reached at the place of occurrence, then the informant saw her husband in injured condition. On query, the husband of the informant disclosed the name of the petitioners and others causing injury on him and thereafter her husband died on spot.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the informant, who is the wife of the deceased, has reached at the place of occurrence after alarm and she found her husband in badly injured condition, as such it was not possible that she came to know from her husband about his assailants.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Uday/- U T