Kanhaee Singh @ Kanhaee Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3548 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2019 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
KANHAEE SINGH @ KANHAEE KUMAR SON OF AJAY KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DAULATPUR CHANDI, P.S. - HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 2.
AJAY SINGH @ AJAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAMKAILASH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DAULATPUR CHANDI, P.S. - HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 3.
RAJA KUMAR @ GAUTAM KUMAR SON OF AJAY KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DAULATPUR CHANDI, P.S. - HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 4.
PRINCE KUMAR @ SAURABH KUMAR SON OF AJAY KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DAULATPUR CHANDI, P.S. - HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sadar Hajipur P.S. Case No. 309 of 2019 registered under Sections 448, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 354(b), 379, 427, 436 and 504 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3548 of 2021(4) dt.18-11-2021 2/2 the present case. There is general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners.
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. There is allegation of assault and demolishing the house of the informant against the petitioners. Further, he submits that petitioners have criminal antecedent. Hence, they do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, 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