Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18681/2025rejected

Ravikant Kumar @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-16Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18681 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-472 Year-2024 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya ====================================================== Ravikant Kumar @ Chhotu Son of Ganesh Dutt Sharma R/o Village -Jota PSAtri Distt -Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner is in custody in a case registered for an offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a)26of Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case on 29.12.2024 informant, namely, Ravindra Kumar Tiwari, A.S.I of Atri Police Station along with police party proceeded towards house of the present petitioner, namely, Ravikant Kumar @ Chhotu for interrogating about previous police case and after reaching there they caught the petitioner on doubt thereafter on searching his house, they found one desi rifle and five cartridges kept in a steel box after which the present case has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18681 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovered arms. He next submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that petitioner has got two criminal antecedents as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. He next submits that petitioner is in custody since 29.12.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that one desi rifle along with five cartridges were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has got two criminal antecedents, so I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

8. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year in custody before the Trial Court.

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