Vishwajeet Kumar Yadav @ Teju @ Teju Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15717 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2024 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Vishwajeet Kumar Yadav @ Teju @ Teju Yadav S/O Virendra Yadav Resident of Village- Tetarya Nawada, P.S- Sahar, District- Bhojpur (Arah). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sahar P.S Case No. 116 of 2024 from the Court of learned CJM, Bhojpur at Ara registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, one loaded country made pistol with five live cartridges and twenty live cartridges in the box were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no incriminating articles has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15717 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2025 2/2 in judicial custody since 22.06.2024 and petitioner has got 14 criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the petition.

5. However, learned APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order and case diary, it appears that one loaded country made pistol with five live cartridges and twenty live cartridges in the box were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer has supported the prosecution case. Petitioner has got fourteen criminal antecedents as stated in paragraph 3 of the petition they are mostly relating to the dacoity, robbery, cheating, forgery etc.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T