Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58931/2019rejected

Bitu Kumar Singh @ Varun Kumar @ Bittu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-24Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58931 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2019 Thana- KUTUMBA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== BITU KUMAR SINGH @ VARUN KUMAR @ BITTU KUMAR Son of Pramod Singh, Resident of Village - Ibrahimpur, P.S.- Kutumba, DistrictAurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kutumba P.S. Case No.06 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 427, 506, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his own younger brother had gone alongwith the driver Gautam Kumar on swift dzire car to Hariharganj to purchase medicine but the petitioner and other accused persons intercepted the car and parked their motorcycle in front of the car. It is alleged that all the accused persons assaulted the informant and his younger brother with iron rod. The accused persons suspected that the informant informed the police that the accused persons were dealing in liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Pappu

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58931 of 2019(2) dt.24-09-2019 2/2 Singh and brother Bittu Kumar Singh got simple injury. Similarly situated co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 09.09.2019 passed in Cr.Misc.No.57120 of 2019. The case of the petitioner stands on same footing, but it appears that beside the allegation that the petitioner and others indiscriminately assaulted the informant and his brother merely on suspicion that the informant worked as informer of the police. The petitioner has got criminal antecedent and he is accused in as many as six criminal cases registered under different sections of the I.P.C. and the Excise Act. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T