Sri Ram Kushwah @ Sri Ram Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57677 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2006 Thana- KUDRA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== SRI RAM KUSHWAH @ SRI RAM SINGH Son of Vikrama Singh, Resident of Village- Kharhariya, P.S.- Sonhan, District- Kaimur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-09-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.N. Thakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with S.T. No. 77 of 2014, arising out of Kudra P.S. Case No. 99 of 2006 registered for offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the informant, her mother-in-law and Devar were sleeping on the roof at mid-night about 1:00 AM. They awoke and saw five miscreants equipped with gun. One of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57677 of 2021(3) dt.08-09-2022 2/3 the miscreants snatched nose pin of the informant. When her Devar, Bipin Singh threw stone chips on the accused persons, they fired shot, which hit at the stomach of Bipin Singh, Devar of the informant. The informant also saw fourteen-fifteen miscreants equipped with gun in the courtyard of her house. They committed gruesome dacoity in her house. The articles of dacoity has been mentioned in the FIR.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. The other accused persons were facing trial and the name of the petitioner was arrayed on the basis of evidences emerged during course of trial and he was summoned to face trial under section 319 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.

It appears that when the trial is going on, the witnesses identified the present petitioner in the dock. It has been mentioned in the impugned order that prosecution witness nos. 1 to 3 have identified the present petitioner as well as co-accused Satyendra Choubey, Sanju Tiwary and Radhe Shyam Tiwary. As evident from the impugned order itself that the petitioner was identified by the witnesses when he was present in the dock, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57677 of 2021(3) dt.08-09-2022 3/3 Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T