Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh @ Rohit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53106 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2016 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH @ DEEPAK SINGH @ ROHIT SINGH S/o Rana Ram Pratap Singh @ Raja Ram Pratap Singh R/o village- Pherna, P.S.- Barhara, District- Bhojpur, At present R/o Pranami Enclave 406, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 427, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending and Section 27 of the Arms Act in the learned court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is case and counter case between the parties and both sides have sustained injuries. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53106 of 2022(4) dt.13-03-2023 2/2 submits that there is admitted land dispute between the parties. He further submits that petitioner has got two criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that as per the FIR the petitioner is the main assailant who fired upon the informant and the bullet hit below the right knee of the informant and injuries were found grievous in nature which is clear from the injury report enclosed in the case diary itself. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 335/2016. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

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