Kundan Kumar Pandey @ Bittu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16627 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2014 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya ====================================================== KUNDAN KUMAR PANDEY @ BITTU S/O ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY R/o Mohalla- Chhotaki Delha, P.S.- Delha. At present renter in the house of Smt. Asha Sinha W/o Kunkun Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Raj Colony, Maharani Road, Nai Godam, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar No2 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 18-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case no. 121 of 2014 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 of the Arms Act. As per allegation in the FIR, on disclosure made by arrested accused Kundan Kumar, a raid was conducted in his house in connection with Police Case No. 09 of 2014 instituted at Orissa, cash of Rs. 3,45,000/-, a laptop and 22 cartridges of 7.65 M.M. were recovered from there.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16627 of 2022(3) dt.18-10-2022 2/2 offence. The Gaya police has not taken any steps for remand of the petitioner in the present case. First case was instituted against the petitioner at Orissa in which during investigation raid was conducted in his house by the Orissa police as well as Gaya police. For the alleged recovery of incriminating articles, present case was lodged by the Gaya Police.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that several arms were recovered from the petitioner's house for which no explanation was given by the petitioner. Seizure list supported the prosecution case. During investigation, other witnesses have also supported the prosecution story.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that recovery of arms have been made from the house of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U