Rahul Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.930 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2020 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR SINGH Son of Mani Singh @ Birendra Singh Resident of Village - Haripur, P.S.- Parwalpur, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rajnandan Prasad @ Lala Bhagat Son of Late Late Gaya Raut Resident of Village - Sinawan, P.S.- Parwalpur, District - Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 23-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sectionss 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Hilsa, Nalanda.

As per prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused and two unknown person entered into the Barn and on protest, one Rocky Sigh fired with pistol which did not hit him. Thereafter, Rahul Kumar Singh (petitioner) fired with pistol, which hit his left hand.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.930 of 2023(2) dt.23-03-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that co-accused, namely, Rockey Singh @ Deepak Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38669 of 2022 dated 22.11.2022. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner as mentioned in para 3 of this application. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioner to have fired upon the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in connection with Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2020.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T