Ram Ekbal Mahto @ Ram Akbal Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2674 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2021 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== Ram Ekbal Mahto @ Ram Akbal Mahato, S/O- Late Sita Ram Mahato Resident Of Village - Gulmahiya Chak, P.S. - Nadi, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B)/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-AA), 26(I)(ii) and 35 of the Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is owner of the house where illegal arms were being manufactured escaped while his son was caught and 20 semi-prepared country-made pistol were recovered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2674 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022 2/2 next submitted that petitioner had given the house on rent to one Ajay Kumar and was not staying in the said house, but came to be implicated merely because he is owner of the house. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and submits that the son of the petitioner was apprehended from the said house from where the illegal arms in huge quantity were recovered. It is next submitted that if the house was on rent what his son was doing there. It is also submitted that there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. that this petitioner managed to escape. Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Court is not inclined to extent the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T