Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22375/2025bail rejected

Md. Arif @ Shibu v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-23Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22375 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Md. Arif @ Shibu Son of Md. Amjad Resident of Dharmpur Ward No.- 27, P.S.- Samastipur Town, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-04-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Samastipur P.S. Case No. 06 of 2025 instituted under Sections 132, 262, 263 of BNS and section 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms Act lodged on 09.01.2025 by the informant, Jitendra Kumar Singh.

3. As per the prosecution story, the allegation of the informant is that while patrolling received that a person is moving with pistol when the Hauk Team went to the place, this petitioner was in possession of the pistol with with a big crowd when the Police reached there, the crowd managed the petitioner to escape from the place though the pistol was recovered, on the basis of which, Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2024 was registered. Accordingly, the FIR.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22375 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession rather the Police has implicated him because he has criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that a perusal of para-3 would show that he is having criminal antecedent under his belt and only due to crowd, he managed to escape despite the Police there.

6. Considering the submissions as also the facts that are on record, no case for anticipatory bail is made. It is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T