Upendra Singh @ Upendra Prasad ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4332 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34565 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2020 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui
 ======================================================

Upendra Singh @ Upendra Prasad Singh, Male, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Yamuna Singh, Resident of Village-Darkha, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 26-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State

and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Sikandra PS Case No. 93 of 2020 dated 09.05.2020, instituted

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 307, 324 of the

Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. The allegation against the petitioner and others is

that they had come on the site and had intimidated the informant

who was tilling the land with his tractor and also opened fire and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34565 of 2020 dt.26-08-2021

specifically against the petitioner is of opening fire which

hit Suresh Kumar on the mouth, cheek and hands.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

has been falsely implicated in the case as the claim of the

informant that he was ploughing the land which he had got on

patta from Dhaneshwar Prasad is falsified by the fact that for the

said piece of land, there was a title suit between the parties and

though the petitioner had lost the suit, he has filed an appeal

which is pending and moreover, this Court by order dated

19.03.2018 in Civil Misc. Case No. 226 of 2018 has stayed further

proceeding in Executive Case No. 3 of 2016, which was filed by

Dhaneshwar Prasad for recovery of possession of the lands in

question. Thus, learned counsel submitted that since admittedly

the land in question was not in the possession of Dhaneshwar

Prasad, he could not have given it on patta to the informant.

Learned counsel submitted that this clearly shows that the

informant's side were the aggressors. Learned counsel submitted

that the wife of co-accused Gorelal Yadav has filed Sikandra PS

Case No. 95 of 2020, with regard to the same incident in which it

is alleged that Gorelal Yadav was the driver of the tractor which

was ploughing the field in question at the behest of the petitioner

and the informant's side in the present case had come there and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34565 of 2020 dt.26-08-2021

had tried to forcibly take possession and plough the lands and

when the accused in the present case protested, the present

informant's side had resorted to firing from different corners and

also overpowered her husband. It was submitted that the informant

resides 4 Kilometers away from the place of occurrence and is a

renowned criminal and used to take contract for getting possession

of lands which were disputed and the present is also such a case.

Learned counsel submitted that there was a free fight and it was

the informant's side which had come equipped with firearms and

it was the firing made from the side of the informant which had hit

Suresh Kumar, who is the victim in the present case and to get

over the situation, the informant has lodged this case to save

himself. It was submitted that independent witnesses have

specifically stated that there was free firing from both the sides

and they have not identified the petitioner as the person whose

firing had hit the victim Suresh Kumar. Learned counsel submitted

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent whereas against the

informant, there are seven criminal cases.

6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that

besides the witnesses having supported the prosecution case, even

the victim has given a statement before the Superintendent of

Police, Jamui supporting the allegations made in the FIR and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34565 of 2020 dt.26-08-2021

reiterating that it was the firing made by the petitioner which had

hit him. Further, it was submitted that multiple gunshot injuries

have been found on the person of the victim Suresh Kumar which

is specifically attributed to the petitioner, both in the FIR as well

as in what has come by way of statement of witnesses during

police investigation.

7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

without going into the civil aspect of the matter, the present case is

only with regard to the incident where it is alleged that the firing

made by the petitioner had hit the victim Suresh Kumar. It was

submitted that the same being corroborated by the injury report as

also the fact that witnesses have supported such allegation, the

petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking

into consideration the fact that the victim himself has given

statement specifically alleging that the firing made by the

petitioner had hit him and the injury report disclosing multiple

firearm injuries, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to

the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34565 of 2020 dt.26-08-2021

10. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under

order dated 16.04.2021, stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T