Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67754/2018dismissed

Shambhu Shankar Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2019-01-29Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67754 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2018 Thana- JAYRAMPUR District- Sheikhpura ======================================================

1. Shambhu Shankar Singh, Son of Rambriksh Singh @ Ram Brikch Singh.

2. Dani Kumar, Son of Ram Brikch Singh @ Ram Brikch Singh,

3. Ram Briksh Singh @ Ram Brikch Singh, Son of Late Narayan Singh, All resident of Village Saraiya P.S. Jairampur, District- Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate For the State :

APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rishikesh Ojha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 29-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 427, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Jairampur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2018.

3. At the very outset, learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant appearing suo motu submits that the petitioners have failed to state the details of all these cases in which they have been made accused prior to institution of the present case. It is pointed out that the petitioners have been made accused in Jairampur P.S. Case No. 44 of 2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed today in which the petitioners have stated details of altogether six prior cases in which they are accused including three cases mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67754 of 2018(3) dt.29-01-2019 2/2

5. Considering that the supplementary affidavit has been filed subsequent to receipt of the case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) U T