← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1095/2021rejected

Binod Singh @ Vinod Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2021-11-15Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1095 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2020 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.

BINOD SINGH @ VINOD SINGH Son Of Parshidh Singh Resident Of Village - Balgudar, P.S. -Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai. 2.

Raj Kumar @ Shamsher @ Shamsher Kumar Son Of Binod Singh @ Vinod Singh Resident Of Village - Balgudar, P.S. -Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai. 3.

Rajeev Kumar Son Of Mahendra Singh Resident Of Village - Balgudar, P.S. -Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-11-2021 In view of the order dated 27.08.2021, the application of petitioner no.1 has already been dismissed as withdrawn. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 61 of 2020 registered under Sections 363 and 365/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of C.J.M., Lakhisarai.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners are brother-in-law of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1095 of 2021(5) dt.15-11-2021 2/2 Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that petitioners are named in the first information report. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T