Gahan Singh Bhokta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9589 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2020 Thana- LUTUA District- Gaya ====================================================== GAHAN SINGH BHOKTA Son of Late Jairam Singh Bhokta Resident of village - Gulariya Tari Satyari, P.S.- Lutua, Dist.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prithivi Raj Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 22-03-2023 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Lutua P.S. Case No.06/2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 120(B), 124(A), 121, 122 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18, 20 of the U.A.P. Act.

As per the prosecution case, the police party reached Gulariyatri Satyari for raiding against Naxals, when they sensed some criminal activities being made from one lonely house. In the meantime, the miscreants started firing for loot of the police arms, for which counter firing was also started and the accused persons started fleeing away. The police surrounded the house and thereafter this petitioner was caught. It is alleged that the police team seized lots of articles, naxal literature and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9589 of 2023(3) dt.22-03-2023 2/2 documents from the house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one co-accused person has been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 22.02.2023, report was called for from the court of learned S.D.J.M., Sherghati, Gaya with regard to present status of the case.

From perusal of the report at Flag 'A', it appears that the case is running on supply of police paper and commitment of the case to the court of sessions.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is again rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T