Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20581/2021bail rejected

Murlidhar Trigun v. The State Of Bihar

2021-09-23Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20581 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2020 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== MURLIDHAR TRIGUN Son of Late Jay Krishna Trigun @ Jay Kishun Trigun Resident of Village- Khiri, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kundan Rathore, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 23-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, the shot fired by the petitioner with the country made katta missed the informant but hit another person namely Kalindra Trigun in his hand. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled against the petitioner are false and concocted. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case would be evident from the FIR itself. On one hand it is the case of the informant that the petitioner was caught and a loaded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20581 of 2021(2) dt.23-09-2021 2/2 katta and cartridges were taken from his possession while at the same time in the seizure list it is the case of the police that the police recovered the arms and ammunition. The petitioner is in custody since 2.12.2020 and charge sheet has been submitted in the case.

Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U