Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21280/2020dismissed

Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-06-30Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21280 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2020 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH @ MITHILESH SINGH Son of Late Awadesh Singh @ Late Awadhesh Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Nawada, P.S.- Saraiya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for regular bail arises out of Saraiya P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020, disclosing offence under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Sections 25(1-b) a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was apprehended by the police on the basis of suspicion when he was driving a Scorpio vehicle with fire-arms and illicit liquor on 01.01.2020 at 4 p.m. The FIR came to be registered at 6.45 p.m. on subsequent date i.e. 02.01.2020.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, was taken

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21280 of 2020(2) dt.30-06-2020 2/2 away from his house by the police without any rhyme or reason and he has, subsequently, been implicated in a false case. She has submitted that an intimation to the effect that the petitioner had been taken away by the police personnel on 01.01.2020 was sent by the mother of the petitioner to the Director General of Police on 02.01.2020 through e-mail.

I have carefully perused the FIR and the seizure-list. The petitioner has criminal antecedent of his involvement in many cases of serous nature, as can be seen from the statement made in paragraph 3 of the application.

For the present, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. This application is accordingly rejected.

Petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for regular bail after three months, if, in the meanwhile, charge is not framed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Rajesh/- U T