Suman Saurabh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19138 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2019 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Suman Saurabh Son of Rekesh Jha Resident of Village - Telhara Kala, P.s.- Kundwa Chainpur, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Karandeep Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 90 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. Allegedly, from the possession of this petitioner an automatic pistol with five live bullets was recovered. The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 30th March, 2019, the alleged recovery of the firearms was not made from the conscious possession of this petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19138 of 2022(2) dt.18-07-2022 2/2 and he has been made accused in this case merely on the basis of his past criminal record.
Learned APP for the State has opposed the bail prayer. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and seizure list attached to the FIR. As per FIR the petitioner at the time of his arrest was carrying a reward of Rs. 50,000 on his arrest declared by State Government. And against him altogether nineteen criminal cases have been shown as his criminal antecedent and from his person an automatic pistol is stated to have been recovered along with five live bullets. Considering the nature of allegation appearing against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedent of nineteen cases mentioned in the paragraph No. 3 of his petition, in my view petitioner does not deserve for bail. Accordingly his bail prayer stands rejected. (Shailendra Singh, J) sangam/- U T