Anuj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25659 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2024 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Anuj Yadav S/o Ajay Yadav R/o vill - Loharchak, P.S. - Kutumba, Dist. - Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nabinagar P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act. 3.

Allegation against the petitioner is to have in possession of one US made pistol and two live cartridges. 4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that seizure list appears doubtful being not supported by independent witnesses, rather by police personnels. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25659 of 2024(2) dt.26-04-2024 2/2 5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6.

In view of the submissions, as made above, as recovery of one US made pistol along with two live cartridges were recovered from the conscious physical possession of this petitioner and petitioner has criminal antecedent of 05 cases, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

8.

Learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the trial could not be concluded within specified period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) S.Katyayan/- U T