Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29290/2021bail rejected

Dina Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2021-12-16Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29290 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-419 Year-2020 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== DINA SAHNI Son of Bipat Sahni Resident of Village- Jhakhiya, P.S.- Banjaria, District- East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyadeo Singh Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 413, 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and sections 8, 20, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. As per the prosecution case, a loaded country made pistol, a separate live cartridge and 500 grams of ganja are stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner's possession who has been falsely implicated in the case because of his antecedent. The petitioner is in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29290 of 2021(5) dt.16-12-2021 2/2 11.9.2020 and in the cases lodged against him on earlier occasion he has been enlarged on bail.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the petitioner has a number of criminal antecedents, details of which has been given in paragraph no. 3 of the petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner together with the antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U