Dipak Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72394 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-295 Year-2020 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran ====================================================== Dipak Singh, Son Of Amir Singh Resident Of Village - Nayka Barka Baiju Tola, P.S. - Rivilganj, District - Saran At Chapra (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the State :

Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Informant :

Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307, 302, 120(B), 326, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2020, he is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant alleges that 11 accused persons including the petitioner came to the house of the informant variously armed and Golu Singh and petitioner having sword and farsa in their hands assaulted the husband of the informant and also assaulted brother-in-law (Rajesh Singh) of the informant. Further on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72394 of 2021(2) dt.13-05-2022 2/2 account of assault, the husband of the informant died. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has tried to make out a case that the occurrence is dated 14.08.2020, the F.I.R. lodged on 15.08.2020 and the same reached the Court of the learned C.J.M. on 19.08.2020. It is also submitted that even the inquest report appears to be doubtful. The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is alleged to be one of the assailants of the husband of the informant. The learned counsel for the informant submits that no wife would falsely implicate an innocent, who has not committed an occurrence by alleging that he is the assailant of her husband.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T