Chandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51909 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2017 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan ====================================================== Chandan Singh Son of Shri Ram Singh R/V- DIBBI, P.S.- M.H. NAGAR, DISTT.- SIWAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 185 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, three miscreants are said to have fired upon the informant including the truck driver of the truck bearing registration no. BR04GA-0305 due to which they got seriously injured.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51909 of 2024(3) dt.30-08-2024 2/2 totally false and based on concocted facts. He is not named in the FIR, rather the FIR was lodged against three unknown miscreants. Later on, during the course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has been transpired in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused and except the confessional statement of coaccused, there is no corroborative material against the petitioner to show his involvement in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has thirteen criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 01.05.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of the offence and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T