Randhir Kumar Gautam v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17979 of 2016 (4) dt.24-06-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17979 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2016 Thana -BANSHI District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Randhir Kumar Gautam, S/o Late Shaligram Paswan R/o Village Mugalapur, P.S Bansi, Distt.- Arwal..... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Banshi P.S. Case No. 01 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a,26/35 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, from the room of the house of the petitioner two country made carbine, two country made katta, 24 live cartridges and five empty cartridges besides mobile were recovered. Submission is of false implication and that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, in the house several tenants are also residing, other co-accused who were arrested have already been allowed bail, copy of seizure list was not given to the petitioner and his signature was taken on plain paper, there is no independent witness of the alleged search and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17979 of 2016 (4) dt.24-06-2016 seizure, the recovery was made from open room which was under construction having no door and windows and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 05.01.2016 having no criminal antecedent deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned APP seriously opposes the prayer of bail by pointing out the alleged recovery and further that four firearms and 24 live cartridges were found to be effective. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within four months after keeping the same on priority basis and concerned Superintendent of Police is also directed to take appropriate steps for production of the prosecution witnesses before the trial court so that the trial be concluded within time, failing which, the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T