Triloki Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33539 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2019 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar ====================================================== TRILOKI PANDEY S/o- LATE NANDU PANDEY Resident of VillageParsauni, Baij Ward No.1, P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-05-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No. 226 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B), 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant Govind Pandey has stated in his fardbeyan that his father (deceased) was an ex-armyman. The petitioner who is younger brother of the informant wanted to take the entire pension from his father. Some dispute taken place between the parties and the petitioner in the evening of 29.12.2019 committed murder of his father by firing shot. The mother of the informant, as per allegation,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33539 of 2021(3) dt.12-05-2022 2/2 had also complicity in the above-mentioned crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also lodged a case against the informant and other accused persons.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. for the State has submitted that there is specific allegation on the petitioner that he committed murder of his father. The witnesses have supported the entire occurrence.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T