Dara Singh @ Abhijeet Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70541 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2019 Thana- KACCHWA District- Rohtas ====================================================== DARA SINGH @ ABHIJEET SINGH Son of Badshah Singh @ Sh. Badsah Singh Resident of Village-Sohada, P.S.-Kachhawan, District-Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nagendra Upadhyay For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kachhawan P.S. Case No. 28 of 2019, registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas.

The accusation is that informant Keshav Singh was sitting at Chabutra near the Pipal tree in Amauna bazar at about 6.30 P.M. on 28.05.2019, at that time, his son Indrabhushan Singh @ Manjee Singh was taking tea at the tea shop of Suga Saw. In the meantime, Dara Singh (Petitioner) came there, boarding on Apache motorcycle, and took out pistol from his waist and fired at his son Indrabhushan Singh.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70541 of 2019(4) dt.05-03-2020 2/2 In the same market Chandra Bhushan Singh and Shashi Bhushan Singh, another sons of informant, were also present there, tried to caught hold him, but he succeeded to flee away. The cause of occurrence is for parking the bus as his son was driver of bus.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, petitioner Dara Singh @ Abhijeet Singh is a Lekhpal in Tahshil Martinganj Janpad, Azamgarh and on the date of occurrence, he was present at Tahshil headquarter and he also put his signature there and he was not involved in the present occurrence, which is 100 K.M. away to the place of occurrence and the possibility of reaching at place of occurrence is not possible.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, at present, on bail. Accordingly, the bail prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T