Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14547/2024bail rejected

Prakash Yadav @ Satya Prakash Yadav @ Satya Prakash @ Prakash v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-14Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14547 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2023 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Prakash Yadav @ Satya Prakash Yadav @ Satya Prakash @ Prakash Son of Ram Chandra Prasad Yadav Resident of vill.-Maniyari, Ward No.7, P.S.- Punaura, Distt.-Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dwij Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Dumra P.S. Case no.283 of 2023 registered under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29of the NDPS Act and sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on a raid being conducted, it is stated that several persons were caught from whom illegal arms and charas was recovered. So far as the petitioner is concerned, a loaded country made pistol with a live cartridge was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of his antecedents. No incriminating article has been recovered from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14547 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2 the petitioner's possession. The petitioner is in custody since 10.6.2023 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. of recovery of a loaded country made pistol and a live cartridge from the possession of the petitioner, recovery of charas from the coaccused and the petitioner having several antecedents as mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the petition, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T