Sidheshwar Prasad Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh @ Daddu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41227 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -43 Year- 2016 Thana -SINGHIYA District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Sidheshwar Prasad Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh @ Daddu Singh Son of Late Kamleshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Bangarhatta, P.S. Singhiya, District- Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Adv. For the informant Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-11-2016 Heard Mr. Vikramdeo Singh learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the informant. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Singhiya P.S. Case No. 43/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons were forcibly harvesting the maize crops of the informant. Rishav Kumar Singh @ Kis Kumar assaulted the informant with Farsa. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh @ Daddu Singh (petitioner) fired from his double-barrel gun which hit Mannu

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41227 of 2016 (2) dt.11-11-2016 2/2 Kumar Jha son of the informant who got fire-arm injury on thigh and finger.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is land dispute between the parties. Petitioner is the owner of the land. The informant side was the aggressor. Petitioner got injury which is simple in nature.

Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the informant purchased the land from the maternal uncle of the petitioner and he is a bona fide purchaser. The petitioner illegally claimed his title over the land.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner who is alleged to have fired, causing injury to Mannu Kumar Jha son of the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders in the court below learned court below shall consider prayer for regular bail of the petitioner on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T