Ram Pragas Singh @ Ram Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53193 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2017 Thana -UJIYARPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Ram Pragas Singh @ Ram Prakash Singh, Son of Late Kamlu Singh, Resident of Village- Korbdha Pataili, Ward o.1, P.S.- Ujiarpur, DistrictSamastipur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 2.

08-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Ujiarpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2017 registered under Sections 145, 186, 342, 323, 353, 379, 427, 435 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District - Samastipur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt the petitioner is named in the First Information Report but there is no whisper of allegation against the petitioner that he had committed any overt act. It is submitted that the deceased boy was a neighbour of the petitioner and for that reason he had been protesting against

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53193 of 2018 (2) dt.08-10-2018 the inaction on the part of the police.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that this petitioner was a member of the mob of the antisocial element and had actively participated in obstructing the police personnel from discharging their public duty and had also indulged in damaging the public property.

In the given facts and circumstances of this case where the name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. as one of the antisocial element who had participated in obstructing the police force and had committed the act of arson, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T