Pradeep Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11076 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2022 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== PRADEEP CHAUDHARY Son of Krishna Chaudhary R/o Pranpur, P.SWazirganj, Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deep Nishi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act pending in the learned court below. Prosecution case in brief, the informant got informant that liquor is being brought by a vehicle. On this informant, he started checking of vehicles and during course of the checking on Sumo Victa car stopped then co-passed succeeded in fleeing away but a person was caught who disclosed the name of the petitioner. On search, 7.65 bore loaded pistol was found near the left seat of vehicle and after unloading the pistol, total seven live cartridge was found.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11076 of 2023(2) dt.25-04-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that offence levelled in the FIR are not attracted against the petitioner because no arms and ammunition was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has got one criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle from which the recovery is made. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 484/2022. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T