Md. Salam Khan @ Pappu Khan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22802 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2016 Thana- SIKANDARA District- Jamui ====================================================== Md. Salam Khan @ Pappu Khan Son of Late Md. Hanif Khan Resident of Sikandra, Police Station - Sikandra in the district of Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-04-2018 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Sikandra P.S.Case No. 167 of 2016 registered under Sections 385, 387, 411 and 120B of the Indian penal Code 25(1-B),a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
Allegation in brief is that police were receiving complaints from the traders that some criminals' gang is demanding extortion and creating fear amongst them and two accused persons were apprehended by the police from whose possession arms were recovered and they disclosed the names of other gang members. Pursuant to that petitioner's house was also raided by the police and recovered from his house one country made pistol, musket, one live cartridge and a key of motorcycle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22802 of 2018(2) dt.18-04-2018 2/2 witness of the seizurelist and petitioner has been falsely implicated.
Whereas learned counsel for the State submits that there is recovery of two country made arms and rifle from the house of the petitioner and he has also criminal antecedents, previously has been involved in the case of robbery. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, presently the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within nine months. If the same is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner may renew prayer of bail. (Arun Kumar, J) sujit/- U T