Patna High CourtCR. MISC./65532/2018dismissed

Ved Prakash Pandey @ Ved Prakash @ Munna Pandey @ Munna Pande v. The State Of Bihar

2019-01-22Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.65532 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2018 Thana- LALGANJ DistrictVaishali ====================================================== Ved Prakash Pandey @ Ved Prakash @ Munna Pandey @ Munna Pande Son of Chandresh Pandey, Resident of Village- Pachpaika, P.S.- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 22-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act registered in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 288 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion, except which there is no objective material whatsoever to connect him with the alleged occurrence. Admittedly, the informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and none of the persons at the place of occurrence have identified the assailant. The F.I.R. itself has been instituted belatedly on 04.08.2018 for the alleged occurrence of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65532 of 2018(4) dt.22-01-2019 2/2 03.08.2018.

4. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the anticipatory bail petition, submitting that the petitioner is said to be the main assailant and persons present at the place of occurrence have stated that the petitioner had earlier issued threats to the deceased and was also seen in the vicinity at the place of occurrence.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders and seeks for regular bail before the Court below, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar/ U T