Bibhuti Singh @ Baua Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43727 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2015 Thana -NIMACHANDPUR District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Bibhuti Singh @ Baua Singh Son of late Rajo Singh Resident of VillageChandpura, Police Station- Neema Chandpura,District Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajey Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Neem Chandpura P.S. Case No. 55 of 2015 registered under Sections 307/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of C.J.M., Begusarai.
The accusation is that 6 persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner and one unknown came on two motorcycles near the informant and pointed the pistol at the informant then he started to flee away. In the meantime, petitioner opened fire, which passed touching the left forearm. Thereafter, Devendra Singh fired on the temple of the informant, which was also passed causing injury to his right shoulder. In that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43727 of 2016 (2) dt.18-10-2016 2/2 course, Gopal Singh shot fired at him causing injury on his right thigh then he fell down. On hulla, villagers came then all fled away.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner and informant are co-villager and due to land dispute, petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Moreover, while the allegation has been made to open fire causing charring injury at the forearm but no any injury was found.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which shall be decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shail/- U T