Amit Kumar @ Happy Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53247 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2023 Thana- SHYAMPUR BHATHAN DistrictSheohar ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR @ HAPPY SINGH S/O KAUSLENDRA SINGH @ UDAY SHANKAR SINGH @ KUMAR VIMLENDR SINGH R/O VILLAGESAHWAJPUR, P.S- SHYAMPUR BHATHAN, DISTT.- SHEOHAR. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Madhuri Lata, APP For the Informant :
None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Though vakalatnama is filed on behalf of the informant but nobody appears on his behalf today. 2.
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Shyampur Bhathan P.S. Case No.36 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 302, 120(B)/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.
3.
Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons have killed the son of the informant. 4.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53247 of 2023(3) dt.12-12-2023 2/2 motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and merely on suspicion, petitioner has been made accused in this case. There is an admitted land dispute between the parties. Petitioner has five criminal antecedent.
5.
Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner and also there is ample evidence against the petitioner in the case-diary.
6.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.
7.
This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T