Patna High CourtCR. APP (SJ)/381/2018dismissed

Guddu Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2018-05-10Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 381 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ===========================================================

1. Guddu Singh, Son of Late Ram Prasad Singh

2. Murli Singh @ Murari Singh, Son of Mudhu Singh

3. Shambhu Singh, Son of Late Jawahir Singh

4. Arbind Singh @ Arbind Kumar Singh, Son of Ramashankar Singh

5. Ramakant Singh, Son of Late Nirmal Singh

6. Madan Singh, Son of Sri Niwash Singh @ Thaggu Singh

7. Munna Singh, Son of Jagdish Singh

8. Sunil Singh, Son of Pushi Singh

9. Munna Singh @ Munna Kumar, Son of Narayan Singh

10. Jiut Singh, Son of Sri Niwash Singh All Resident of Village - Nimdihara, P.S. Kargahar, District Rohtas at Sasaram.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Karghar P.S. Case No. 128 of 2017 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 427 of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.381 of 2018 dt.10-05-2018 2/3 the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

According to FIR, the informant had taken on auction the referred pond for the purpose of fishing. When the informant was fishing, the appellants variously armed, came there and started firing and committed mischief by damaging the water pumping machine.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is of false implication.

However, nothing has been brought on the record to substantiate claim of the appellants on the said plots referred in the FIR on which the pond is there. Other witnesses have also supported the allegation against the appellants. There is case and counter case. Considering the nature of allegation and material available in the case diary, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.

Hence, prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and the appeal stands dismissed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 14.05.2018 Transmission Date 14.05.2018

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.381 of 2018 dt.10-05-2018 3/3