Mohan Singh @ Radha Mohan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85002 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2019 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== MOHAN SINGH @ RADHA MOHAN SINGH S/o Shiv Pujan Singh @ Sheo Pujan Singh R/o village- Bhagwatpur, P.S.- Chandee @ Chandi @ Candi, District- Bhojpur (Ara) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aditya Nath Pandey, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rajendra Narayan Sr. Adv with Ramakant Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Chandi @ Chandee @ Candi P.S. Case No. 2 of 2019, instituted for the offence under Section(s) 341, 323, 307, 302,379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for the informant appears and files 'vakalatnama' which is taken on record. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the manner in which the allegations have been levelled renders the entire prosecution story to be suspicious. The petitioner has been implicated in the instant case falsely and that the allegation is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85002 of 2019(2) dt.20-12-2019 2/2 highly improbable in the way, in which, it has been lodged. Learned counsel(s) for the informant and the APP have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner is named accused in the instant case. There is specific allegation that he has given a Tangi blow upon the informant and there is further allegation that he along with others have assaulted his father who, subsequently, has succumbed to his injuries. It is also informed that all other accused persons have been allowed bail only after their arrest.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for pre- arrest bail is, accordingly, rejected. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U T