Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15260/2020rejected

Sanjit Kumar @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

2020-06-01Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15260 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2019 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjit Kumar @ Chhotu Son of Ram Nath Prasad Resident of Village - Danada, Police Station - Bikram, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs.Soni Srivastava, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 01-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, through video conferencing.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bikram P.S. Case No 283 of 2019 registered for the offence under sections 25(1-B) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, on secret information having been received, a raid was conducted on the house of the petitioner and a NP bore revolver with 25 live cartridges were recovered and the petitioner was taken into custody. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of recovery is false and concocted and the petitioner has been framed in the case. The signatories to the seizure list have not been examined as witness during

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15260 of 2020(3) dt.01-06-2020 2/2 investigation. The petitioner is in custody since 31.08.2019 and he is on bail in all the earlier cases wherein he has been falsely implicated.

The application for bail is opposed by the learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact of recovery of the articles from the house of the petitioner together with the criminal antecedent, the court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

However, taking into consideration the petitioner being in custody since 31.8.2019 and having been granted bail in other cases, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody. (Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U