Vinay Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52494 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2019 Thana- AANDAR District- Siwan ====================================================== VINAY KUMAR PANDEY, Son of Bharat Pandey Resident of Village - Mahmudpur, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate, For the informant :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Andar P.S. Case No. 81 of 2019, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Siwan.

The accusation is that in the evening of 29.05.2019, the informant was at his door along with his mother, father and sister, at that time, Vinay Kumar Pandey along with Binod Bihari Dubey, Sadanand Avnish @ Bhola Dubey came at his door and told that Vinay Kumar Pandey (Petitioner) is searching to kill you. After short interval petitioner along with 10-15 unknown variously armed with weapons came at his door & started to abuse and petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52494 of 2019(2) dt.22-08-2019 2/2 gave the iron rod blow at his chest neck and head. Binod Bihari Dubey and Sadanand Avnish @ Bhola also caused injury through Lathi. The petitioner also snatched Rs. 2000/- from his pocket.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner and informant are co-villagers and due to dirty village politics, he has falsely been implicated in this case. Moreover, the injuries as found on the person of informant are simple in nature.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant submits that, earlier, the petitioner had also caused injury to the informant and he has criminal antecedent as he is involved in seven cases.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T