Allowed

Ram Vijay Singh @ Rambijay Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Sept 2021CR. MISC./14412/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with a criminal case alleging murder and mischief. The court directed the petitioner to fix defects in the file within four weeks and deposit a bail bond with sureties within eight weeks once normalcy is restored.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on personal bond; directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties within eight weeks after normalcy restoration.

Ram Vijay Singh @ Rambijay Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14412 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2020 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

RAM VIJAY SINGH @ RAMBIJAY SINGH Son of Late Bhikhari Singh Resident of Village - Chapari, P.S.- Obra, District - Aurangabad

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 22-09-2021

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State through virtual mode.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Barun P.S. Case No. 206 of 2020 registered under Sections 427, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶15

Allegedly, while the informant’s husband namely, Jitendra Singh @ Tiger along with his brother and two others was returning his home from car, in the way, the accused persons intervened and got stopped the car. It is further alleged that one Sheo Kumar Singh and two others, who had wrapped their faces, opened fire upon informant’s husband as a result of which, the informant’s husband succumbed to the injuries.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14412 of 2021(3) dt.22-09-2021 2/3

¶17

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case for oblique reason. The informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. As per the FIR itself, the informant made statement stating that one Ashok Singh had informed her regarding the occurrence and on the narration given by the said Ashok Singh, she has made statement in the FIR. It is alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused had fired upon the deceased as narrated to the informant by the said Ashok Singh. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the statement of said Ashok Singh has been recorded in paragraph-10 of the case diary. From perusal of the statement of the said Ashok Singh, it is evident that he has named co-accused Sheo Kumar Singh who is alleged to have fired along with some other unknown persons. Admittedly, he has not named the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section-161 Cr.P.C. In his statement, the said Ashok Singh has claimed to be an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Similar statement has been made by the other independent witnesses who are also said to be eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. Their statements have been recorded in paragraphs-11 & 12 of the case diary. The said witnesses whose statements have been recorded at paragraphs-11 & 12 of the case diary, have also not named the petitioner rather they have only named co-accused Sheo Kumar

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14412 of 2021(3) dt.22-09-2021 3/3

¶19

Singh. The informant for oblique reason has tried to develop the prosecution case and named the petitioner in her statement with mala fide intention.

¶20

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurarngabad in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 206 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶23

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶24

A.K.V.//-

¶25

U T

Ram Vijay Singh @ Rambijay Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Vijay Singh @ Rambijay Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Mahto Vs the State of Bihar

Raju Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ujjawal Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Lalan Kumar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Aruna Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Hashim Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar Through Mr. R. K. Mahajan, Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Depar