Vishal Tiwari @ Pana v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7658 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2021 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Vishal Tiwari @ Pana Son Of Sri Pramod Kumar Tiwari @ Manna De Resident Of Village- Sonpur Gotoli, P.S. Katra, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Udbhav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-06-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly from the conscious possession of this petitioner a country made pistol was recovered with a magazine having four cartridges.

The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that there is criminal antecedent of five cases against the petitioner but he is on bail in four cases and in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7658 of 2022(2) dt.22-06-2022 2/2 the fifth case the petitioner was remanded after his arrest in the present case, as a matter of fact the petitioner was not arrested at the alleged place of recovery and he was taken in custody from his house on account of having criminal antecedent of four cases and as per FIR the alleged place of recovery is stated to be a busy place but any independent person was not made witness of the recovery of fire arms.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having considered the recovery of fire-arms from conscious possession of the petitioner and considering his criminal antecedent of five cases mentioned in para 3 of his petition in my view this petitioner does not deserve bail, Accordingly his prayer for bail stands rejected. Petitioner may renew his prayer for regular bail after framing of charge before the Court below, if he prefers the said liberty then learned Court below will decide his prayer without being prejudiced with this order.

(Shailendra Singh, J) siddharthkr/- U T