Saurav Kumar @ Saurav Thakur @ Saurav Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19493 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2024 Thana- Lakho District- Begusarai ====================================================== Saurav Kumar @ Saurav Thakur @ Saurav Kumar Thakur S/O Ashoka Thakur R/O Vill.- Sahpur, P.S.- Lakho, Dist.- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, 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/26/35 of Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, informant, namely, Madan Kumar Singh, A.S.I. of Lakho P.S. got a secret information regarding transportation of a country made pistol on a motorcycle while on patrol duty after which they allegedly intercepted the motorcycle being ridden by the petitioner and recovered one country made pistol with two live cartridges from his possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19493 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025 2/2 case. He next submits that petitioner has no concern at all either with the said motorcycle in question or with the alleged recovered arms. He further submits that petitioner has got six criminal antecedents as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. He next submits that petitioner is in custody since 18.08.2024.

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 country made pistol with two live cartridges were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has got six criminal antecedents and all cases are registered for serious nature of offence, 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