Vijay Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42442 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -218 Year- 2017 Thana -NOKHA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Vijay Singh.

2. Dadan Singh.

3. Mahendra Singh.

All sons of Late Kesho Prasad Singh.

4. Sheo Shankar Singh, Son of Lallan Singh.

All resident of Village- Sisirit Tola, P.S.- Nokha (Dharmpura), DistrictRohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr.

For the State : Mr.

For the Informant : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER --------------- 03-10-2017 Let the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners be kept on the record.

Heard.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Nokha (Dharmpura) P.S. Case No.218 of 2017 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram. The accusation is that when the informant Ramashish Singh alongwith his brother Ramashray Singh went to the field for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42442 of 2017 (3) dt.03-10-2017 2/2 measurement, at that time, Lalan Singh and Vijay Singh (petitioner no.1) came there and shot fire. Thereafter, when the informant and his brother moved from there towards their house, six other family members of the family of Lalan Singh, including the petitioners chased them in the way and caused injury to the informant and his brother through Gahdal and iron rod.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, in fact, at the measurement of the land, the occurrence of "Maar-Peet" took place in between the parties in which the petitioners' side also sustained injury. Moreover, the injuries, as found on the person of the informant and his brother, are grievous in nature. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T