Santosh Kumar Singh @ Santosh Kumar Himanshu And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9769 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2013 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Santosh Kumar Singh @ Santosh Kumar Himanshu.
2. Sunil Kumar Singh @ Chotak Singh, both are sons of Late Kedar Singh, resident of Village-Kochas P.S- Kochas District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------- 18-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sasaram (Model) P.S. Case No.119 of 2013 registered under Sections 323, 341, 353, 504, 506, 224 and 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram.
The accusation is that when the petitioner no.1, Santosh Kumar Singh alias Santosh Kumar Himanshu, was being taken for production in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram, in connection with Kochas P.S. Case No.138 of 2012 on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9769 of 2016 (2) dt.18-04-2016 2/2 05.02.2013, in the way, the petitioner no.2, Sunil Kumar Singh alias Chotak Singh, being the brother of the petitioner no.1, alongwith 4-5 persons made attempt to set him free and started to scuffle with the police officials near the office of S.D.P.O. but on the interference of the other police officials, the petitioner no.2 could not succeed in setting the petitioner no.1 free. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T