Dismissed

Murlidhar Trigun v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Sept 2021CR. MISC./20581/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Miscellaneous No.20581 of 2021, the Patna High Court rejected an application for regular bail filed by the petitioner in a case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The court was not inclined to enlarge the bail in light of the allegations and circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail is rejected. Liberty to renew prayer after six months.

Murlidhar Trigun Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20581 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2020 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar

¶3

======================================================

¶4

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

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP

¶11

======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 23-09-2021

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20581 of 2021(2) dt.23-09-2021 2/2

¶19

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.

¶20

Heard learned APP for the State.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶24

Prakash/-

¶25

Murlidhar Trigun v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Trigun v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nijamuddin Ansari @ Lallu @ Md. Nizamuddin Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Uday Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Dushyant Kumar @ Golu Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Binju Patwari Vs The State of Bihar

Laxman Mahto Vs the State of Bihar