Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74827/2025disposed

Sittu Singh @ Sittu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-19Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74827 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2024 Thana- Madhubani T District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Sittu Singh @ Sittu Kumar S/o Bauka Singh @ Rampujan Singh R/o Village- Sarsi, P.S.- Sarsi, District- Purnea 2.

Punkesh Singh @ Mukesh Singh S/o Shankar Singh R/o Village- Sarsi, P.S.- Sarsi, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 2, namely, Punkesh Singh @ Mukesh Singh as he has been arrested.

2. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

4. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Madhubani P.S. Case No. 156 of 2024 for the offence registered under sections 308(5), 352, 351(2) of BNS.

5. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the petitioner no. 1 (Sittu Singh) asked him to talk to his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74827 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 leader on phone whereafter Punkesh Singh demanded extortion of Rs. 20,00,000/- and failure to do so, the Police will find his dead body. This led to the FIR.

6. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner no. 1 tried to impress upon this Court that due to enmity, the allegation has been made against him, learned APP has taken this Court to paragraph 3 to show that he has multiple cases under his belt which include cases under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. In the FIR, his role has been recorded.

7. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner surrender and seek bail, no case of anticipatory bail is made out, rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take up the matter and dispose it of preferably on the same day. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T