Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11552/2017rejected

Mithilesh Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-23Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11552 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2013 Thana -BARUN District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Mithilesh Singh, S/o Rakshya Singh,

2. Prem Ranjan Kumar @ Prem Ranjan Singh, s/o Mithilesh Singh,

3. Rewati Ranjan @ Rewati Ranjan Singh, s/o Mithilesh Singh, All are resident of Village- Karamdih, P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Barun P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant alleged that the petitioners came and assaulted the informant and others and asked them to withdraw the case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing of Santan Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence took place in a field. Independent witnesses have also stated that the occurrence took place in the field but it appears that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11552 of 2017 (4) dt.23-06-2017 2/2 the informant and other witnesses have very categorically stated that the petitioners came to the house of the informant and assaulted him and others only because the informant and others did not agree to withdraw the case lodged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing of Santan Singh, father of Chhotu Singh one of the injured.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T