Amar Kumar Singh @ Amar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3989 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2018 Thana- SHAHKUND District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.
AMAR KUMAR SINGH @ AMAR KUMAR S/o Jambu Prasad Singh R/o Village- Bandhaw, P.S.- Shahkund (Sajour), Dist- Bhagalpur. 2.
Pawan Kumar S/o Jambu Prasad Singh R/o Village- Bandhaw, P.S.- Shahkund (Sajour), Dist- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pranav Kumar, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Shahkund (Sajour) P.S. Case No. 134 of 2018 (G.R. No. 3048 of 2019) registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 354(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are of clean antecedent, are innocent and have not committed any offence. In fact, the occurrence took place on 04.06.2018 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 07.06.2018 without explaining the plausible delay. No occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place. The petitioner may be granted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3989 of 2020(3) dt.22-06-2020 2/2 privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioners causing injury to the informant which is evident from injury report at Annexure-2. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses have supported the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. which is evident from paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of these petitioners is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T