Raumi Singh @ Babua Singh @ Amulya Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67256 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- DEEPNAGAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Raumi Singh @ Babua Singh @ Amulya Kumar S/o- Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Navinagar PS- Deepnagar, DistNalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Saurav Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-10-2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024 dated 18.05.2024 registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 337, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case the petitioner - Raumi Singh along with twelve F.I.R. named accused persons and 15-20 unknown persons armed with "lathi", "danda", "bricks" and stones arrived at the scene of occurrence where the electrician was trying to restore electricity supply after power breakdown and started pelting stones and resorted to indiscriminate firing with intent to kill. During the course of firing family members
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67256 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 2/3 of informant namely, Shiv Kumar and Nitish Kumar sustained bullet injury in their leg and Sujeet Kumar and Sahil Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar sustained injuries in thigh and neck respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner is innocent and has not committed offence in the manner alleged and has falsely been implicated due to village politics. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and no specific overt act has been attributed to him. There is no direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence showing complicity of the petitioner. None of the injured has stated that he sustained firearm injury by the petitioner. The petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The petitioner is one of the F.I.R. named accused involved in using fire arms. The learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif has specifically noted in the impugned order that four family members of the informant have sustained firearm injuries on their person and one of the injured has sustained grievous injury over his neck. Recovery and seizure of one live and two empty shells of cartridges corroborates the allegation against the petitioner as well as occurrence. The informant and other witnesses have supported
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67256 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 3/3 the prosecution case in paragraph nos. 6, 13, 14, 15 & 43 of the case diary.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. causing bullet injury to the family members of the informant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T