AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 342, 504 of the IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, arising out of Hussainabad P.S.Case No.42 of 2016, dated 20.02.2016, corresponding to G.R. No.284/16.
The present case has been registered on the basis of information given by one Vikrant Kumar Singh, wherein it is alleged that the informant was going to his Khalihan from his house on 19.2.2016 at 9.00 p.m. and had reached the door of Alok Kumar Singh @ Tutu Singh, who came out of his house asked that why the informant is not ready to sale his lands in spite of repeated request by him andthereafter started hurling abuses to the informant and when the informant protested, then the petitioner (Dinesh Kumar Singh) and his brother Alok Kumar Singh slapped him and also assaulted him with the butt of the rifle and on the instigation of their father, who order to kill, three rounds were fired from rifle however the informant made his narrow escape.
It is alleged also that when the informant was coming to the police station than co-accused Alok Kumar Singh and his cousin brother who driving the vehicle were sitting on road with rifle and therefore, the informant out of fear could not reach the police station in the night of the occurrence itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to land dispute, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the informant has not received any injury, hence no case is made out under Section 307 of the IPC.
Learned APP has received the case diary and submitted that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that at para-2 of the case diary informant Vikrant Kumar Singh supported the case and repeated the fact about firing from rifle.
It is further submitted that at para -3 and 4 of the case diary, statement of the witnesses namely, Ajay Singh and Chandan Kumar Singh respectively have been recorded, who supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that para-14 of the case diary one empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence. In para 18 , 19, 21 and 22 of the case diary I.O has recorded the statement of witnesses namely, Suresh Singh, Kundan Singh, Ramashray Singh, who have taken the name of this petitioner and stated that this petitioner was participated in this occurrence.
After hearing the parties, going through the record and in view of the fact that the witnesses have supported the case, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below.