Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17295/2024bail rejected

Abhimanyu Pathak @ Chhotu Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-14Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17295 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-468 Year-2023 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar ====================================================== Abhimanyu Pathak @ Chhotu Pathak Son Of Jiut Pathak R/O-Jaso, P.S.- Buxar (Muffasil), Distt.-Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Buxar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 468 of 2023, lodged on 29.10.2023, under Sections 25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the present petitioner from whose possession huge quantity of arms and ammunition were recovered, whose description has been mentioned in the seizure list.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the content of the FIR itself discloses that the said article does not belong to the petitioner rather it is of his son-in-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17295 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2 law (Bhagina). Counsel submits that there is one criminal antecedent of the petitioner which is of land dispute. The petitioner is in custody since 30.10.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that huge quantity of arms and ammunition have been recovered from the petitioner's house.

6. Upon the specific query of the Court that whether charges have been framed or not. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his knowledge charges have not been framed.

7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew the prayer for bail three months after framing of the charges.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T