Md. Sajid @ Lamboo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49741 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -420 Year- 2016 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Md. Sajid @ Lamboo Son of Late Md. Chand, resident of village Majhaulia, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mazharul Hassan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 420 of 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 414. 401. 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a, 25(1-A), 25 (1-AA), 25(1-AAA), 26(2) and 27(2) of the Arms Act pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. .

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is recovery of one country made pistol and one cartridge from possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has remained in custody for about six months and one more case has been lodged against him but in that case the petitioner has been made accused on the basis of the confessional statement of other co-accused.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49741 of 2016 (3) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. also who has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and from perusal of the record it appears that a report about the stage of the case had been called for from the court below which has come and is kept at flag 'A'. From the report it appears that now the case has been committed to the court of Session and the next date fixed for framing charge is on 19.01.2017.

Considering the above fact and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for about six months, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, after framing of charge, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself which will be considered and disposed of considering the period of detention of the petitioner also.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amin/- U