Ramashray Saw @ Ramashray Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1538 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2013 Thana -RAIL District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. Ramashray Saw @ Ramashray Sah Son of Late Banarsi Saw Resident of village - Etoun, P.O. Mananpur, Police Station - Chanan, District - Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Irshad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar 2 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2015 Heard Shri Ranapratap Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013 registered under section 25(1)ab (11.aa) (1b)e/26/35 of the Arms Act. Sachidanand Kumar the informant got an information that huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were coming trough train No. 13071 Up.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is admittedly the lease holder of the SLR brake van. The only fault of the petitioner is that he did not check the consignment before booking the same. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1538 of 2015 (4) dt.09-02-2015 2/2 articles kept in the box. On perusal of the record it appears that on secret information the informant along with other police party laid seize on the platform and it was found that bags were sent through currier and Vinod Gupta claiming himself to be the unloading agent received the consignment and on search huge quantity of different parts of pistol was recovered. It appears that the petitioner the lessee of SLR and owner of Man Kali Currier Pvt Ltd. has sent the consignment. Hence I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated time the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly before the learned trial court. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) M.Rahman/- U T