Prem Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67859 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2023 Thana- SIMRI District- Buxar ====================================================== PREM SINGH Son of Rambadan Singh R/o vill - Balihar, P.S. - Simari, Distt. - Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satyapal Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Simari P.S. Case No. 213 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that one person died due to electrocution in the field of the petitioner in which Jhataka wire fenced.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the village chowkidar due to dirty village politics. It is further stated that at the time of alleged occurrence the land of the petitioner was vacant and nothing was sown in his field. The allegation levelled against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67859 of 2023(3) dt.25-01-2024 2/2 the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further stated that the family members of the deceased has given the affidavit before the D.I.G. stating therein that no wire was fenced in the field of the petitioner. The petitioner has three criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is evidence against the petitioner in the case diary, hence the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T